STAN TRAKHENBERG, as Co-Trustee of the RTM Irrevocable Trust v. CASH DEPOT, INC., et al.

have been filed with the Court by April 28, 2026. Plaintiff filed the proofs of service on July 22, 2026. Notwithstanding, Rule 3.110 does not provide that the failure to file the proof s of service invalidates service. Rather, the Rule only allows the Court to set an order to show cause hearing to determine whether sanctions should be imposed on Plaintiff to file the proofs within the 60 day deadline.

Defendants do not argue that service was defective. Accordingly, Defendants were required to respond by May 11 and May 13. There is no dispute that Defendants failed to do so.

Defendants instead argue that Plaintiff granted them an extension to June 3, after which they filed a declaration for an automatic thirty day extension. In opposition, Plaintiff argue s that his grant of an extension was conditioned on Defendants' filing an answer, not a demurrer. In reply, Defendants argue that any such conditions on an extension request would violate the rules of civility. Defendants cite to Local Rules of Court, Rule 3.26, Appx. 3.A (Guidelines for Civility in Litigation), subd. (a)(5) which states "[a] lawyer should not, by granting extensions, seek to preclude an opponent's substantive rights, such as his or her right to move against a complaint" .

Defendants also cite to Section 1 of this Department's rules which state: "The court expects all attorneys and parties to grant reasonable requests for professional courtesies, such as requests for reasonable extensions of time for deadlines to respond to pleadings, discovery or other matters."

Defendants are simply wrong that Plaintiff could not have conditioned his grant of an extension on Defendants' filing an answer rather than a responsive pleading. That is done all the time. By the time the extension was granted, Defendants had failed to respond, and arguably should have been defaulted. Local Rules of Court, Rule 3.26 only precludes conditions to requests for extension that are " unfair and extraneous ". The condition Plaintiff imposed on his extension was neither unfair nor extraneous. The condition is no different than in a case where a responding party to a discovery request blows past a response deadline, and the propounding party allows them an extension to respond, but only if they waive all objections, which is also done all the time. Accordingly, Defendants had until June 3 to file an answer, and there is no dispute they failed to do so.

Defendants also rely on a request for automatic extension they filed on June 2. But at that point, Defendants' deadline to file a demurrer had already passed. A demurring party cannot file a request for automatic extension after the deadline to file a demurrer. In addition, to qualify for automatic extension, Defendants have to show that they made a good faith attempt to meet and confer with Plaintiff five days before their responsive pleading was due. Assuming that their responsive deadline was June 3, 2026 (based on Plaintiff's grant of an extension to this date), they have to have attempted to meet and confer with Plaintiff five days earlier, or by May 29, 2026.

They could not have conceivably done so because they claim they did not know service had been effected until June 1, 2026. Accordingly, the declaration Defendants filed to seek the automatic extension was simply false. Because there was no automatic extension, Defendants' demurrer and motion to strike are untimely.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court OVERRULES the demurrer and DENIES the motion to strike. The Court sets an order to show cause ("OSC") hearing on September 1 8, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. to determine whether sanctions should be imposed on Plaintiff for failure to file the proofs of service within the deadline set forth in Rule 3.110 and whether sanctions should be imposed on Defendants and their counsel for filing a false declaration for automatic extension. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: August 2 8, 2026 ___________________________ Edward B. Moreton, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court Case Number: 26SMCV01796 Hearing Date: August 28, 2026 Dept: 205 Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles - West District Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 20 5

STAN TRAKHENBERG, as Co-Trustee of the RTM Irrevocable Trust, Plaintiff s, v. CASH DEPOT, INC., et al., Defendant s. | Case No.: 2 6 SMCV0 1796 Hearing Date: August 2 8, 2026 [TENTATIVE] order RE: defendant CASH DEPOT, INC.'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT | This hearing is on Defendant's demurrer to the Complaint.

The demurrer is procedurally defective. A demurrer must distinctly specify the ground of objection to the challenged complaint or it may be disregarded. (C ode Civ. Proc., Sec. 430.6 0.) Furthermore, each ground of the demurrer must be stated in a separate paragraph and must indicate whether it applies to the entire pleading being challenged or only to specified causes of action. (C alifornia Rules of Court, Rule 3.1320(a) .)¿Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 430.6 0 ¿also requires that each ground be separately stated in the demurrer document. Accordingly, the Court will take the demurrer off calendar. DATED: August 2 8, 2026 ___________________________ Edward B. Moreton, Jr. Judge of the Superior Court | Home -->)" -->