Talent Management Partners, Inc. v. Richard M. Spiker and Steven M. Spiker

Kohan identified two cashier's checks she withdrew from her personal Chase savings and checking accounts, and which she keeps at her home. (Osborn Decl., P.P. 6-8, Exh. C.) On March 13, 2026, the court issued a Writ of Execution against Simon Gamzaletova, Reymond Gamzaletova, Farideh Kohan, Mustafa Asghari, West Valley MRI, Inc., and SoCal Imaging, Inc. (Id., P. 12.) The court finds that Judgment Creditors met their burden to show that the court may issue a turnover order against Kohan as Judgment Creditors demonstrated that a writ of execution has been issued, but that Judgment Creditors have not recovered the amounts due under the Judgment, such that Judgment Creditors show a "need for the [turnover] order" pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 699.040, and that a judgment debtor examination as to Kohan has taken place, such that Judgment Creditors demonstrated that the court may issue a turnover order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 708.205. (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec.Sec. 699.040, 708.205.) The court also notes that the motion is unopposed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54, subd. (c) ["A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion."]; Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.) Accordingly, the motion is granted. IV. CONCLUSION 1. Plaintiffs /Judgment Creditors Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, and Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company's Motion for Charging Order is GRANTED.

2. Plaintiffs /Judgment Creditors Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, and Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company's Motion to Compel Turnover of Nonexempt Property is GRANTED.

Richard M. Spiker's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND On May 19, 2023, Plaintiff Talent Management Partners, Inc. ("TMP") filed a complaint against Defendants Richard M. Spiker ("R. Spiker") and Steven M. Spiker ("S. Spiker") (collectively, "Defendants") alleging causes of action for: 1. Declaratory Relief; 2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty; 3. Conversion; and 4. Constructive Trust. On August 31, 2023, the court overruled S. Spiker's Demurrer to TMP's complaint. On September 11, 2023, S. Spiker filed an answer to TMP's complaint.

On September 18, 2023, at the request of TMP, the Clerk's office entered default against R. Spiker. On October 30, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, the court vacated the default entered against R. Spiker. On November 1, 2023, R. Spiker filed an answer to TMP's complaint and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants TMP and Kevin Crissman ("Crissman") (collectively, "Cross-Defendants") alleging causes of action for: 1. Conversion; 2. Interference with Contract; 3. Breach of Fiduciary Duties; 4. Breach of Contract; and 5.

Declaratory Relief. On November 29, 2023, Cross-Defendants' filed an answer to R. Spiker's cross-complaint. On November 17, 2025, the court denied R. Spiker's Motion to Disqualify Counsel for TMP. On April 1, 2026, R. Spiker filed this Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Cross-Complaint. On August 5, 2026, TMP filed an opposition. As of August 13, 2026, no reply has been filed. On May 21, 2026, the court granted R. Spiker's Motion to Disqualify Counsel for Crissman. II. LEGAL STANDARD Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a)(1), "[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 473, subd. (a)(1).)¿Amendment may be allowed at any time before or after commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 576.) "[T]he court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified." (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428 [internal citations omitted].) "If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend[.]"¿ (Morgan v.

Sup. Ct. (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Prejudice includes "delay in trial, loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation." (Solit v. Tokai Bank, Ltd. New York Branch (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1448.)¿¿¿¿¿ ¿¿¿ A motion to amend a pleading before trial must include a copy of the proposed

amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subd. (a).) The motion must also state what allegations are proposed to be deleted or added, by page, paragraph, and line number.¿(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subd. (a).) Finally, a separate supporting declaration specifying the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reason the request for amendment was not made earlier must also accompany the motion. (Cal.

Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subd. (b).)¿¿¿¿ III. DISCUSSION R. Spiker seeks leave to file a first amended cross-complaint to include an additional cause under California Corporations Code section 709 arguing that such claim is necessary to determine stock ownership over TMP and the validity of its board elections, (Motion, at p. 3.) R. Spiker argues that there is no prejudice arising from the amendment and that the amendment will allow the efficient adjudication of the core issues of the instant action. (Id., at pp. 4-6.)

In opposition, TMP concedes to allowing the proposed amendment. (Opp., at p. 2.) However, TMP requests that the court expedites a hearing on the Section 709 matter following limited discovery on this issue alone and suspend all other discovery. (Ibid.) The court finds that R. Spiker complies with the requirements of¿Rule 3.1324 by providing a copy of the proposed first amended cross-complaint, identifying the changes to be made, and a supporting declaration stating why the amendment is necessary. (Sabovich Decl., P.P. 2-6, Exhs.

A-B.) The court also notes that the parties do not oppose the proposed amendment. Accordingly, the motion is granted. The court will inquire at the hearing regarding TMP's proposed sequencing of discovery and the bifurcation of the Section 709 issue. IV. CONCLUSION Defendant/Cross-Complainant Richard M. Spiker's Motion for Leave to File First Amended Cross-Complaint is GRANTED. | Home -->)" -->