Howard Minkow vs. Richard Bennett

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 300) August 18, 2026 DEPARTMENT 300 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

CASE NAME: Howard Minkow vs. Richard Bennett TYPE OF MOTION: Motion for Charging Order FILING PARTY: Plaintiff Howard Minkow RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed HEARING DATE: August 18, 2026 Case Background This is an action for breach of contract and fraud. Plaintiff alleges Defendant promised Plaintiff a 1% ownership interest in his entertainment company in exchange for $8,500.

On May 3, 2024, Plaintiff Howard Minkow (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendant Richard Bennett (Defendant) and DOES 1 through 20 asserting causes of action for: (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Breach of Oral Agreement; and (3) Fraud.

On November 7, 2025, the Court entered judgment by default in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant.

On May 1, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for a charging order. The motion is unopposed. Instant Motion Plaintiff moves the Court for a charging order for the unpaid judgment of $11,218.20 plus costs, and post-judgment interest thereon against Defendant's interest in the limited liability company, Soon Recordings, LLC.

Discussion

Plaintiff moves the Court for a charging order for the unpaid judgment of $11,218.20 plus costs, and post-judgment interest thereon against Defendant's interest in the limited liability company, Soon Recordings, LLC.

On November 7, 2025, this Court granted judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendant in the amount of $11,218.20. (Sampson Decl., Exhibit 1.)

Plaintiff makes the instant motion on the grounds that, to date, Defendant has not paid any monies owed under the judgment. (Sampson Decl., P. 9.)

Further, Plaintiff states that Defendant has failed to respond to any of Plaintiff's attempts to resolve the issue and settle the judgment debt. (Sampson Decl., P.P. 10-11.)

Plaintiff states that Defendant has admitted to his involvement and ownership of Soon Recordings, LLC. (Sampon Decl., P. 13-14.) In fact, Defendant is Soon Recordings, LLC's sole member and principal. (Ibid.)

As such, Plaintiff seeks a charging order against Defendant's interest in Soon Recordings, LLC for the ongoing and unpaid balance due on the November 7, 2025, judgment. (Sampson Decl., P. 15.)

Here, it is undisputed that Plaintiff has an unsatisfied judgment against Defendant in the amount of $11,218.20 and that Defendant possesses a membership interest in Soon Recordings, LLC.

The instant motion was properly served upon Defendant and, consequently, the manager of Soon Recordings, LLC.

Accordingly, the Court finds that the issuance of a charging order is warranted.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion for a charging order against Defendant is GRANTED.

Case Number: 24STCV24154 Hearing Date: August 18, 2026 Dept: 300 CASE NUMBER: 24STCV24154 CASE NAME: Connor Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc. vs. Carra J Contreras TYPE OF MOTION: Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint FILING PARTY: Plaintiff Connor Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc. RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Matthew Contreras and Carra J. Contreras HEARING DATE: August 18, 2026 Instant Motion Connor Air moves the Court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(a)(1) and 576, for an order permitting leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC).

Evidentiary Objections Connor Air submits a total of ten (10) evidentiary objections to the declarations of Carra J. Contreras and Rosemary Amezcua-Moll.

Sustain: 1-4 (Irrelevant), 5 (Improper Legal Conclusion/Lacks Personal Knowledge), 6 (Improper Legal Conclusion / Speculation), (8) Improper Legal Conclusion), (9) (Lack Personal Knowledge / Speculation), (10) (Argument / Improper Conclusion / Speculation)

Overrule: 7

Discussion Connor Air moves the Court, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 473(a)(1) and 576, for an order permitting leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC).

"[T]he court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings."¿ (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.)¿"Where no prejudice is shown to the adverse party, the liberal rule of allowance prevails." (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 56-66; cf. Arthur L. Sachs, Inc. v. City of Oceanside (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 315, 324 (denial of leave to amend on the eve of trial was error absent a showing a prejudice).)