DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV2023-1138·yolo·Civil·Judgment Collection
Hearing todayGRANTED IN PART

Sacramento Equity Fund VX, LLC v. Kamilos

Motion for charging order

Hearing date
Aug 25, 2026
Department
Fourteen
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffSacramento Equity Fund VX, LLC
DefendantKamilos

Ruling

Case: Sacramento Equity Fund VX, LLC v. Kamilos Case No. CV2023-1138 Hearing Date: August 25, 2026 Department Fourteen 9:00 a.m.

Judgment creditor Sacramento Equity Fund VX, LLC’s (“judgment creditor”) unopposed motion for charging order is GRANTED IN PART. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.310; Corp. Code, § 17705.03.) The Court finds that judgment creditor has not shown that Cassano Kamilos Homes is a Limited Liability Company. (Code Civ. Proc., § 708.310.) Therefore, the Court declines to issue Order No. 1-5 as to Cassano Kamilos Homes. As to Woodland 158, LLC, CCLC 37.5 LLC, Mountain House College Park Investors, LLC, Kamilos Holdings I, LLC, Kamilos Holdings II, LLC, Kamilos Holdings III, LLC, Woodland Industrial Park, LLC, Woodland Park Holdings, LLC, and Wackman Elk Grove, LLC, the Court finds that judgment creditor has established that Order No. 1-4 should be issued. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 708.310; Corp. Code, § 17705.03; Praetzellis decl., ¶¶ 1-5, Exhibits A-C.) However, judgment creditor has not provided authority establishing that Order No. 5 should be issued. Therefore, the Court declines to issue Order No.

5.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of this Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 11.2(b). Counsel for moving party, or the moving party if unrepresented by counsel, is ordered to notify the opposing party or parties immediately of the tentative ruling system.

If no hearing is requested, and no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

2 of 3

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share