The Standard Fire Insurance Company vs. Milton Roy Company, Hartell Division

The ADR Review Hearing is vacated.

SCPMG to give notice. 102 The Standard Fire Insurance Company vs. Milton Roy Company, Hartell Division, 25-01473457 PRO HAC VICE The unopposed applications of attorneys (1) Ryan C. Edwards and (2) Taylor S. Lovejoy to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Defendant Milton Roy, LLC are GRANTED.

Moving attorney met the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 9.40.

Moving attorney to give notice.

MOTION TO COMPEL DEPO Plaintiff The Standard Fire Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) moves to compel Defendant Viking Range, LLC’s representative Michael Lacombe to appear for a deposition. Plaintiff also asks for monetary sanctions in the amount of $561.65 against Viking Range, LLC’s attorney, Sierra J. Chinn-Liu, Esq., for the reasonable costs and fees associated with having to bring this motion. The Motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.450, et seq. and 2023.030(a).

Defendant Viking Range, LLC (“Defendant”) oppose the motion.

The Motion is CONTINUED TO September 3, 2026 at 1:30 p.m.

The Court finds that whether Mr. Lacombe signed the verification to Defendant’s discovery responses is of great significance to the issues presented in this motion. However, Plaintiff has not provided any admissible evidence that Mr. Lacombe signed a discovery verification in defense of this case. Plaintiff also did not provide admissible evidence that Mr. Lacombe appeared at destructive testing on Defendant’s behalf.

Plaintiff is ordered to file evidence establishing that Mr. Lacombe signed the verification on behalf of Defendant and any other evidence supporting Mr. Lacombe’s role and/or responsibilities in relation to Defendant no later than 9 court days before the continued hearing. Defendant is permitted to file a 3 page reply in addition to evidence opposing Plaintiff’s contentions no later than 5 court days before the continued hearing.

If Plaintiff’s statement is true, that Mr. Lacombe signed the discovery verification on behalf of Defendant in defense of this case, the Court strongly encourages the parties to work

together to establish a mutually agreeable date to conduct Mr. Lacombe’s deposition.

Plaintiff to give notice. 103 BKC Entertainment LLC vs. K1 Speed Franchising, Inc., 23-01317103 Off-calendar. 104 Perceptive Tax Advisory Group, LLC vs. Zero Effort Nutrition, L.P., 26-01549057

Defendant Zero Effort Nutrition LP seeks an order sustaining its demurrer to the 7th cause of action of Plaintiff’s Complaint and an order changing venue to Los Angeles. (ROA 10)

Initially, on 2/18/2026 Plaintiff PERCEPTIVE TAX ADVISORY GROUP, LLC, a California limited liability company filed a Complaint for:

1. Breach of Contract; 2. Open Book Account; 3. Account Stated; 4. Money Had and Received; 5. Fraud – Intentional Misrepresentation – Civil Code §§ 1709, 1710(1); 6. Fraud – False Promise – Civil Code §§ 1709, 1710(4); 7. Intentional Interference with Contract – Inducing Breach of Contract; 8. Violations of Voidable Transfer Act - Civil Code § 3439.04(a)(1); and 9. Violations of Voidable Transfers Act - Civil Code § 3439.04(a)(2)

Notably, the 7th cause of action for Intentional Interference with Contract – Inducing Breach of Contract is directed against Defendants ZENINC, Rossano, and Does 1-25. Moving Party here is Defendant Zero Effort Nutrition, L.P. dba ZEN Foods ("ZENLP"). Moving Party fails to explain how it has standing to demurrer to a cause of action not directed to it. As such, the demurrer is overruled.

As to Venue, in paragraph 13 of the Complaint, Plaintiff pleads:

“13. Venue for this action is proper in Orange County, California, in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 395 et seq., for numerous reasons: “a. The contract alleged herein arose in Orange County and specifies Orange County venue for legal proceedings; “b. The defendants waived any objection to venue in Orange County by failing and refusing to participate in the alternative dispute resolution procedures specified in the contract alleged herein;