ESTELLE’S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al.

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 08/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

*** If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov, which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 17A ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16173813009 and the ZoomGov ID is: 161 7381 3009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 17A at (916) 874- 5487 for assistance. ***

Defendants are admonished for failing to comply with California Rules of Court rule 3.1110, which requires the first page of each paper to state the trial date immediately below the number of the case.

Defendants’ motion to continue trial is GRANTED, as detailed herein.

The complaint in this matter was filed on November 21, 2023, with trial set for September 8, 2026. On August 5, 2026, defense counsel filed an ex parte application to be relieved as counsel, on the basis that a breakdown in communication has occurred between counsel and Defendants, rendering it impossible for continued representation. The request was denied by the Honorable Judge Krueger on August 6, 2026, on the basis that a withdrawal of counsel so close to the September 8, 2026, trial date would prejudice Defendants’ rights. The motion to be relieved as counsel is currently set for September 22, 2026, in Department 16C.

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) “Although continuances of trial are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.” (Id., rule 3.1332(c).) “The court may grant

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 08/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Ibid.) “The general rule governing continuances set forth in section 9 [of the Standards of Judicial Administration] is that ‘. . . the necessity for the continuance should have resulted from an emergency occurring after the trial setting conference that could not have been anticipated or avoided with reasonable diligence and cannot now be properly provided for other than by granting of a continuance.” (Lazarus v. Titmus (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1250 [emphasis added].)

The Court finds good cause to grant the requested continuance. The breakdown in communication between Defendants and counsel renders the upcoming trial date untenable. The Court has considered the factors identified in Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, and finds they weigh in favor of the requested continuance in order to permit the court to rule on the merits of defense counsel’s motion to withdraw and, if granted, permit Defendants time to obtain new representation.

The Court understands that Plaintiff believes the reason for the proposed withdrawal is not due to a breakdown in communication, but is due to financial reasons. In support of this assertion, Plaintiff cites to recent verified discovery responses and deposition appearances. Plaintiff argues that these facts establish that Defendants are actively participating in the litigation and that there has not been a breakdown in communication between Defendants and Counsel. The Court finds this anecdotal evidence does not establish that Counsel’s declaration that there has been a breakdown in communication, which declaration was signed under penalty of perjury, is false. The Court understands Plaintiff’s frustration, however the Court finds that Counsel has demonstrated good cause to grant the continuance.

The motion to continue trial is GRANTED. The September 8, 2026 trial date is VACATED. The Court notes that a motion to compel further responses is currently reserved for April 27, 2027. The parties are encouraged to keep this next hearing date in mind when selecting a new trial date, as the Court’s calendar is congested and the Court will not look favorably upon a motion to advance a hearing date that pre-existed at the time a new trial date was selected.

The parties failed to comply with Local Rule 2.11, which requires all counsel to provide their availability for the 90-day period following the current trial date, regardless of whether the motion is opposed. As a result, the Court is unable to select a date for trial that will not result in a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 08/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

potential conflict. Therefore, the Court will instead refer this matter to the Trial Setting Process.

This case is referred to the Trial Setting Process for selection of trial and mandatory settlement conference (“MSC”) dates. All counsel (including parties appearing in pro per) shall confer and agree upon three (3) trial and three (3) MSC dates. Available dates can be obtained on the Court’s web site at https://services.saccourt.ca.gov/PublicCourtApplications/Civil/TrialSettingProcess/. Plaintiff shall promptly utilize the online submission form on the above website to submit the parties’ preferred dates to the Court. The Court will review the submitted dates and from those, select one MSC and one trial date. The Court will provide email confirmation of the confirmed dates to the party that submitted the online form.

If the parties have not agreed on dates and/or otherwise fail to submit their agreed upon dates to the Court on or before the 60th day after the date of the Court’s referral order, court staff shall assign MSC and trial dates that are next available, unless an extension of time has been granted by the appropriate Civil Home Court Department.

Upon receiving email confirmation from the Court confirming the calendared MSC and trial dates, Plaintiff shall file and serve notice of such dates, times, and departments to all parties. The Court will provide notice to the parties only in the instance where the Court has selected dates due to the failure of the parties to submit their preferred dates in a timely manner.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; CRC 3.1312.)

*** This case has been assigned to Department 17A for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 68086 and California Rules

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV012093: ESTELLE'S BAKING COMPANY LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs DEMOSTHENES JOHN KAUFMAN AND MARIA THERESA KAUFMAN, TRUSTEES OF THE DJKM TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 23, 2000, et al. 08/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

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 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. ***