EBF HOLDINGS, LLC vs JMGJ GROUP INC., et al.

25CV001392: EBF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs JMGJ GROUP INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 8D, located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

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.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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 in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf 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.

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

25CV001392: EBF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs JMGJ GROUP INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 8D

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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

TENTATIVE RULING

Cross-Complainant’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Cross-Complainant is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Cross-Complainant is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Cross-Complainant 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).

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Jacque Chokrola Ojadidi’s (“Ojadidi”) Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This action arises out of a business relationship between Ojadidi, Defendant JMGJ Group Inc. (“JMGJ”), and Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant EBF Holdings, LLC (“EBF”).

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on January 17, 2025, alleges that in June 2024, EBF and JMGJ entered into a “revenue based financing agreement,” by which EBF purchased a portion of “future receipts” from JMGJ. (Compl., ¶¶ 9-11.) Plaintiff alleges that EBF violated the agreement between the parties by “intentionally divert[ing] revenue,” and preventing EBF from obtaining funds to which it was entitled. (Compl., ¶¶ 20, 21.) JMGJ allegedly failed to pay default fees and additional charges. (Compl., ¶¶ 21, 23, 24.)

Plaintiff further alleges that Ojadidi signed a personal guarantee, providing that if JMGJ failed to perform any of its “guaranteed obligations,” EBF could recover from Ojadidi. (Compl., ¶ 25.) The complaint brings causes of action for breach of revenue based financing agreement against JMGJ, fraud against all defendants, negligent misrepresentations and omissions against all defendants, unfair business practices against all defendants, claim and delivery against all defendants, and breach of guaranty against Ojadidi.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001392: EBF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs JMGJ GROUP INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 8D

On February 13, 2025, Ojadidi, proceeding in pro per, filed the first operative first amended cross-complaint (“FACC”). Ojadidi alleges that EBF breached certain contractual terms, that its demand was fraudulently inflated, and that there was fraudulent impersonation and conspiracy. FACC at p. 8, ¶¶ 3-4, p. 12, ¶¶ 9-11.) The FACC alleges causes of action for breach of contract against EBF, fraud/fraudulent settlement practices and criminal impersonation against EBF and defendant Jewelissa Medkiff (“Medkiff”), usury/unlawful loan against EBF, intentional tort/civil conspiracy to commit fraud and criminal impersonation against EBF Medkiff and Recovery Solutions Group, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against EBF, unfair business practices against all cross-defendants, alter ego against defendant Scott Crocker (“Crocker”), intentional interference with business relations against all crossdefendants, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against all cross-defendants.

Ojadidi now moves for a preliminary injunction against EBF, “its agents, representatives, attorneys, and all persons acting in concert with them” and an order:

(1) Directing EBF to “immediately transmit corrected notices to Payoneer and PayPal, stating that the amount EBF claims is owed is $12,543.25 (the exact amount pleaded in EBF’s Complaint in this action)”; (2) Prohibiting EBF or its agents from “communicating, reporting, or asserting any inflated, false, or inconsistent debt amounts to Payoneer, PayPal, or any third parties”; (3) Directing EBF to take all reasonable steps to lift the freezes of Ojadidi’s Payoneer and PayPal accounts; and (4) Setting the amount of a bond or undertaking to be posted by Ojadidi or waiving the bond requirement.

(Pl.’s Notice of Motion at p. 2.)

EBF opposes.

Legal Standard

“As its name suggests, a preliminary injunction is an order that is sought by a plaintiff prior to a full adjudication of the merits of its claim. [Citation.]” (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554.) “The purpose of such an order ‘is to preserve the status quo . . . .’ It ‘does not constitute a final adjudication of the controversy.’ [Citation.]” (Costa Mesa City Employees Ass’n v. City of Costa Mesa (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 298, 305.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001392: EBF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs JMGJ GROUP INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 8D

“To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff ordinarily is required to present evidence of the irreparable injury or interim harm that it will suffer if an injunction is not issued pending an adjudication of the merits. [Citation.]” (White, supra, 30 Cal.4th at 554; see generally Code Civ. Proc. § 526, subd. (a)(2) [a preliminary injunction “may be granted. . . [w]hen it appears . . . that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce . . . great or irreparable injury . . . to a party to the action].) “‘[T]he extraordinary remedy of injunction’ cannot be invoked without showing the likelihood of irreparable harm. [Citation.]” (Intel Corp. v.

Hamidi (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1342, 1352.) Similarly, “if the plaintiff may be fully compensated by the payment of damages in the event he prevails, then preliminary injunctive relief should be denied.” (Tahoe Keys Property Owners’ Ass’n v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1471 [stating “[t]he showing of potential harm that a plaintiff must make in support of a request for preliminary injunctive relief may be expressed in various linguistic formulations, such as the inadequacy of legal remedies or the threat of irreparable injury [citations], but whatever the choice of words it is clear that a plaintiff must make [a] showing which would support the exercise of the rather extraordinary power to restrain the defendant’s actions prior to a trial on the merits”].)

“If the threshold requirement of irreparable injury is established, then [the court] must examine two interrelated factors to determine whether . . . a preliminary injunction should be [issued]: ‘(1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or nonissuance of the injunction.’ [Citation.]” (Costa Mesa City Employees Assn., supra, 209 Cal.App.4th at 306.)

Further, where the preliminary injunction mandates an affirmative act that changes the status quo, it is scrutinized even more closely for abuse of discretion. A preliminary mandatory injunction is rarely granted. The granting of a mandatory injunction pending trial is not permitted except in extreme cases where the right thereto is clearly established and it appears that irreparable injury will flow from its refusal. (Teachers Ins. & Annuity Assn. v. Furlotti (1999) 70 Cal. App. 4th 1487, 1493; Integrated Dynamic Solutions, Inc. v. VitaVet Labs, Inc. (2016) 6 Cal. App. 5th 1178, 1184; Perez v. Hastings College of the Law (1996) 45 Cal. App. 4th 453, 456.)

The party seeking injunctive relief bears the burden of showing all elements necessary to support issuance of a preliminary injunction. (O’Connell v. Super. Ct. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001392: EBF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs JMGJ GROUP INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 8D

Discussion

Here, Plaintiff seeks mandatory injunctive relief (i.e., directing EBF to take specific action with respect to Payoneer and PayPal and the freezes of Ojadidi’s accounts). Ojadidi argues that he will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, because his accounts are frozen, thus halting business operations for months, damaging his credit, and risking the loss of future business. (Mot., p. 9:4-15.) Ojadidi further argues that he has a high probability of prevailing on the merits of his claims against EBF.

EBF argues that there is no irreparable injury because there is a remedy at law available to Ojadidi, and that Ojadidi cannot show a probability of prevailing on his claims. EBF further argues that Ojadidi delayed for a year before bringing the instant motion, thus undercutting his claim of irreparable injury.

Delay in moving for a preliminary injunction may be considered in determining whether the claimed injury is “irreparable.” (O'Connell v. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.) “Long delays in assertion of rights can be the basis of denial of mandatory injunctive relief.” (Lusk v. Krejci (1960) 187 Cal.App.2d 553, 556.) Such delays may be explained; however, Plaintiff has provided no such explanation here. (See Nutro Products, Inc. v. Cole Grain Co. (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 860, 866.)

In the instant case, Ojadidi argues that his accounts have been frozen since January 17, 2025. (Mot., p. 4:22-25 [“On January 17, 2025, EBF filed the instant lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court demanding $12,543.25. Simultaneously and inconsistently, EBF represented to Payoneer and PayPal that the amount owed was $36,273.38, causing immediate freezes on Cross- Complainant’s critical payment accounts.”].) While Ojadidi states that his accounts have “remained frozen” during the entirety of this time, he presents no argument or explanation as to how he has continued to run his business in this time, despite the frozen accounts.

Indeed, Ojadidi declares only that his “business income has been substantially reduced due to the frozen accounts and active lien.” (Ojadidi Decl. ¶ 13 [emphasis added].) Ojadidi cites to no specific event or harm which has led to the filing of the instant motion, beyond the fact that his accounts remain frozen.

In support of Ojadidi’s claim of irreparable injury, he presents the declarations of JMGJ’s employees, who attest that they have not been paid since March of 2026. (See Mot., Exs. G, H.) However, while Ojadidi attests that the account freezes have prevented JMGJ from paying its employees, he does not explain how JMGJ was able to pay its

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001392: EBF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs JMGJ GROUP INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 8D

employees for over a year after the freezes went into effect. (See Patel Decl. ¶ 4 [“Since March 26, 2026, I have not received my wages from JMGJ Group Inc.”]; Piyush Decl. ¶ 4 [“Since March 26, 2026, I have not received my wages from JMGJ Group Inc.”]; Kumar Decl. ¶ 4 [“Since March 26, 2026, I have not received my wages from JMGJ Group Inc.”].) Moreover, it appears that the employees are employed by JMGJ, not Ojadidi. (See Patel Decl. ¶¶ 1-2; Piyush Decl. ¶¶ 1-2; Kumar Decl. ¶¶ 1-2.) JMGJ is not a party to the FACC. Further, Ojadidi, representing himself pro per and as an individual no licensed to practice law in California, does not and cannot represent JMGJ or its interests (including its purported harm) in this litigation. Ojadidi does not explain how his position as a Guarantor of JMGJ supports his claim of injury as a result of JMGJ’s inability to pay its employees.[1]

EBF filed its complaint on January 17, 2025, alleging that this matter has been in dispute since as early as September 20, 2024. Ojadidi has known of EBF’s claims since that time, as EBF sent “numerous e-mails and text messages” to JMGJ and Ojadidi at that time. (Compl., 22.) Plaintiff has known for almost two years of EBF’s claims and JMGJ’s accounts have been frozen for more than a year and a half. Ojadidi has failed to explain the delay in bringing the instant motion.[2] The Court is not persuaded that Ojadidi has established the existence of an irreparable injury warranting a mandatory injunction.

Moreover, although Ojadidi further attests that his business has suffered lost revenue and received credit denials as the result of a UCC lien obtained by EBF against JMGJ, he provides no substantive argument as to why the lien is improper beyond conclusory statements that the lien is unenforceable, illegal, and obtained through improper judicial channels.[3] For example, Ojadidi argues that he has a high probability of success on the merits that EBF violates Civil Code section 1788 et seq., and Penal Code sections 115 and 532a, but such statutory provisions are not alleged in his FACC.

Further, Ojadidi argues that the contract is unenforceable because of a mandatory arbitration clause that EBF has chosen not to enforce in this action. However, Ojadidi has not provided any authority to support that an opposing party’s failure to enforce an arbitration provision shows a likelihood of success on a party’s own breach of contract, fraud, or other substantive claims that would support the injunctive relief requested in this case.

Disposition

The motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED as Plaintiff has not met his burden of showing irreparable harm or likelihood of success on the merits supporting issuance of the requested injunction.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV001392: EBF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs JMGJ GROUP INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/17/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 8D

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

[1] Finally, the Court notes its serious concerns that in a declaration by Ojadidi filed on

May 1, 2026 in support of a previously filed Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Ojadidi declared that he is “the sole owner, President, sole officer, and only employee of JMGJ Group Inc.” (Ojadidi Decl. in Support of Preliminary Injunction, filed May 1, 2026, ¶ 2.) [2] The Court notes that Ojadidi first sought a Temporary Restraining Order in April 2026.

This does not change the Court’s analysis regarding delay. The Court further notes Ojadidi’s ex parte applications for temporary restraining orders were denied on April 10, 2026, April 21, 2026, April 23, 2026. (Minute Orders, dated 4/10/26, 4/21/26, and 4/23/26.) The Court denied the applications, inter alia, for failure to show irreparable injury to the applicant. (Ibid.) [3] As set forth above, to the extent Ojadidi is seeking to represent JMGJ’s interests,

such representation is improper. Ojadidi has not presented evidence of a UCC lien against him.