Element 82, Inc. v. Electro Scan, Inc.

25CV018820: ELEMENT 82, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION vs ELECTRO SCAN, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

25CV018820: ELEMENT 82, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION vs ELECTRO SCAN, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint in Department 8D

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING Cross-Defendant’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Cross-Defendant’s counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Cross-Defendant’s counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Cross-Defendant’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Cross-Defendants’ Element 82 Inc. and Crown Electrokinetics Corp. (“Cross- Defendants”) demurrer to Cross-Complainants’ Electro Scan, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, Charles Hansen, Michael App, and Matt Campos (“Cross-Complainants”) first amended cross-complaint (“FACC”) is CONTINUED to October 19, 2026 to permit the parties to engage in further meet-and-confer efforts. Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a) provides:

Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. If an amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer is filed, the responding party shall meet and confer again with the party who filed the amended pleading before filing a demurrer to the amended pleading.

(Emphasis added.)

Further, Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a)(3) requires that the moving party file and serve with the demurrer a declaration stating either:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018820: ELEMENT 82, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION vs ELECTRO SCAN, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint in Department 8D

(A) The means by which the demurring party met and conferred with the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer, and that the parties did not reach an agreement resolving the objections raised in the demurrer. (B) That the party who filed the pleading subject to demurrer failed to respond to the meet and confer request of the demurring party or otherwise failed to meet and confer in good faith.

The declaration of Melinda H. Lewis filed in support of the instant motion indicates that counsel for parties met and conferred telephonically on October 14, 2025, which resulted in agreement that Cross-Complainants would file an amended Complaint. (Lewis Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6.) Subsequent to the filing of the operative FACC, Counsel for Cross-Defendants sent an email to Counsel for Cross-Complainants regarding their position regarding continued deficiencies in the FACC. (Lewis Decl. ¶¶ 8-9, Exh. A.) Counsel for Cross-Complainants regarding responded, asking what deficiencies were believed to remain and noting that she is open to discussing them, but would prefer for them to be in writing. (Ibid.)

Counsel for Cross-Defendants responded with a list of issues for correction. (Ibid.) Counsel for Cross-Complainants stated that she would review and get back to Counsel for Cross-Defendants “on these, some of which are newly raised.” (Ibid.) Counsel for Cross-Defendants responded that “none of them are newly raised” and had been discussed during the October 14 call. (Ibid.) There is no evidence of any further meet-and-confer efforts, and the demurrer was filed one week later. Based on this record, the Court finds that Cross-Defendants did not comply with the requirement that the parties meet and confer again—in person, by telephone, or by videoconference—before filing the demurrer to the FACC.

The Court notes that in Opposition, it appears that there are a number of concessions regarding causes of action alleged in the FACC. As such, it seems like there is potential for further narrowing of the issues before the Court if the Parties engage in the statutorily-required meet and confer. Accordingly, this matter is CONTINUED to October 19, 2026, at 1:30 p.m., in department 8D so that the parties can engage in further meet and confer efforts. Cross- Defendants shall, pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, subdivision (a), meet and confer “in person, by telephone, or by video conference” with Plaintiff regarding his FAC filed on February 13, 2026.

No later than October 5, 2026, Cross-Defendants shall file and serve a supplemental declaration, in conformity with Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41(a)(3), in which Defendant shall also identify what issues, if any, remain unresolved following the meet-

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018820: ELEMENT 82, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION vs ELECTRO SCAN, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION 08/19/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to the First Amended Cross-Complaint in Department 8D

and-confer process and will still require resolution by the Court.

No later than October 5, 2026, the Parties shall also file and serve a joint statement, not to exceed eight (8) pages, with the Parties equally sharing the page limitation, regarding their respective positions on the outstanding issues for the Court to resolve. The Parties should address and provide authority to support their positions regarding the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction or potential stay/abatement under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction under the facts before the Court. Specifically, it appears to the Court that nearly identical (if not wholly identical) allegations and causes of action were alleged in the First Amended Cross-Complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court matter, 25STCV23162, and that the Los Angeles Superior Court has already ruled on a demurrer to a Second Amended Cross-Complaint, wherein certain causes of action were dismissed with prejudice.

While Cross-Complainants contend that this case is “based on distinct and separate claims and causes of action,” it is unclear to the Court on the current submissions how the claims and causes of action are sufficiently different based on a comparison of the two First Amended Cross-Complaints that are the only pleadings currently before the Court. (See also Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 788 [“the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction does not require absolute identity of parties, causes of action or remedies sought in the initial and subsequent actions.”].)

No further briefing is allowed without prior permission by the Court.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)