ECKHOFF VS. FAMILIES FORWARD

6. 10/3/23 – 2/13/24, due to Plaintiff’s filing of a vexatious litigant motion which was granted as to Alai’s cross- complaint on 2/13/24. (3 months 21 days [113 days].) 7. 4/24/24 – 2/4/25 based on the Court of Appeal’s order granting a stay of the entire case while vexatious litigant motion was on appeal pursuant to Defendant’s motion filed in the appellate court. (9 months 11 days [286 days].) 8. 6/10/25 – 11/25/25 due to Defendant’s filing of another vexatious litigant motion. (5 months 15 days [168 days].)

In summary, the case was filed eight years, one month, and 15 days ago [2,967 days] as of 8/11/26. However, the entire case has been stayed for a total of at least 1,460 days, meaning the case has been active for only 1,507 days as of 8/11/26 and the case will be approximately four years, two months, and 23 days [1,545 days] old as of the trial date on 9/18/26.

In reply, Alai argues the anti-SLAPP appeal in 2019 did not stay the entire case, which would reduce the total stayed time by 429 days because the case was not stayed as to the complaint between 9/10/19 and 11/12/20. In support of her argument, Defendant cites Judge Schwarm’s tentative ruling dated 1/14/20, which stated in part as to Defendant’s motion for a stay that, “The court DENIES the Motion to the extent it seeks to stay the entire action. The court GRANTS the Motion to the extent it seeks to stay Cross-Defendant’s (Jocelyn Plummer) pending Motion for Terminating Sanctions against the Cross-Complainants...” (Defendant’s Req. for Jud. Notice, p. 98.)

However, Judge Schwarm’s final ruling reflected in the 1/14/20 minute order stated in part, “The Court DOES NOT Adopt and Confirm its tentative ruling as to Motion No.

1. The Parties have agreed to a discovery stay on this matter pending the determination of the appeal regarding the Court's decision on the Anti-Slapp Motion. All parties agree to stay all proceedings pending the appeal.” Therefore, the entire case was stayed during the anti- SLAPP appeal pursuant to all parties’ agreement.

Defendant’s litigation strategy has resulted in extensive stays of this case. Moreover, Defendant failed to appear and object to the trial date at the Trial Setting Conference on 12/12/25. Therefore, the motion is denied.

15. ECKHOFF VS. FAMILIES ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY FORWARD INJUNCTION

Petitioner Stephanie Eckhoff’s motion for a Preliminary Injunction restraining and enjoining Respondent Families Forward from taking any action to further terminate her program status or her continued possession of the premises located at 17 Cascade, Irvine, CA 92605 is CONTINUED to 9/8/26 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C32.