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. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Parts of 1st 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

25CV001392: EBF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs JMGJ GROUP INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Parts of 1st Amended Cross Complaint in Department 8D

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.

*** 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:

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant EBF Holdings, LLC’s (“EBF”) motion to strike portions of in pro per Defendant and Cross-Complainant Jacque Chokrola Ojadidi’s (“Ojadidi”) First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) is ruled upon as follows.

Ojadidi’s request for judicial notice filed on August 3, 2026 is DENIED as the documents are not appropriate for judicial notice and are not relevant to the ruling on the instant motion.

The Court incorporates its ruling on EBF’s concurrently filed demurrer herein.

I.

Background

This action arises out of a business relationship between Ojadidi, Defendant JMGJ Group Inc. (“JMGJ”), and EBF. Ojadidi alleges that he is the owner / guarantor of JMGJ. (FACC, ¶ 1.)

EBF’s complaint alleges that Ojadidi and JMGJ entered into an agreement by which EBF purchased future receipts from JMGJ in the amount of $27,550 for the sum of $19,000. (Compl., ¶ 10.) The complaint further alleges that JMGJ breached the agreement between the parties, as when EBF attempted to withdraw its due payments, the account had insufficient funds. (Compl., ¶¶ 26-29.)

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. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Parts of 1st Amended Cross Complaint in Department 8D

On February 13, 2025, Ojadidi filed a Judicial Council form cross-complaint alleging three causes of action against EBF and named cross-defendant Eric B. Fabrikant: (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud, and (3) intentional tort. The Cross-Complaint alleged fraud by asserting that Cross-Defendant made verbal assurances to Cross-Complainant that Cross-Defendant would not charge late payment penalty fees but did in fact assess a $5000 late payment penalty fee. The Cross-Complaint intentional tort alleged a civil conspiracy to ruin Ojadidi’s credit worthiness by intentionally failing to report his payments to credit bureaus as promised. Ojadidi further alleged EBF acted to further the conspiracy by imposing an unreasonably high late payment fee to any late payments made by Ojadidi. The Cross-Complaint further sought repayment of late fees.

On January 14, 2026, the Court sustained EBF’s demurrer to all three causes of action alleged in Ojadidi’s complaint and granted leave to amend. Specifically, the Court concluded that Ojadidi failed to plead facts sufficient to demonstrate the violation of a material term of the contract for the breach of contract cause of action, failed to plead facts showing falsity and intent to defraud for the fraud cause of action, and failed to substantively oppose the ground for demurrer for the intentional tort cause of action. As such, the Court sustained the demurrer, but granted leave to amend as to each cause of action. (Minute Order, dated 1/14/2026.)

On February 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Cross-Complaint. 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: (1) breach of contract against EBF, (2) fraud/fraudulent settlement practices and criminal impersonation against EBF and cross-defendant Jewelissa Medkiff (“Medkiff”), (3) usury/unlawful loan against EBF, (4) intentional tort/civil conspiracy to commit fraud and criminal impersonation against EBF, Medkiff, and cross-defendant Recovery Solutions Group, (5) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against EBF, (6) unfair business practices against all cross-defendants, (7) alter ego against crossdefendant Scott Crocker (“Crocker”), (8) intentional interference with business relations against all cross-defendants, and (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress against all cross-defendants.

EBF now moves to strike the third, fifth, sixth, seventh, eight, and ninth causes of action, portions of the caption adding the new cross-defendants, and the prayer for punitive

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. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Parts of 1st Amended Cross Complaint in Department 8D

damages.

On March 19, 2026, Ojadidi filed a declaration in opposition to the motion. On March 20, 2026, Ojadidi filed supplemental declaration. On July 14, 2026, Ojadidi filed a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motion to strike. On August 3, 2026, Ojadidi filed a request for judicial notice related to the instant motion.

II. Legal Standard

“The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to [Code of Civil Procedure] Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading, (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 436.) The grounds for a motion to strike must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).) The use of the motion to strike should be cautious and sparing. It should not be a procedural “line item veto.” (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1683.)

A court tests the adequacy of a claim for punitive damages by way of a motion to strike. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164; see also Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. v. Superior Court (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 365, 384-385 [“The appropriate procedural device for challenging a portion of a cause of action seeking an improper remedy is a motion to strike”].) As such, it is appropriate to bring a motion to strike when a complaint improperly seeks punitive damages. (Id.; see also Venice Town Council, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1547, 1561-1562; Grieves, supra, 157 Cal.App.3d at p. 164.)

III.

Discussion

EBF moves to strike the portions of the FACC that add new causes of action and new parties on the grounds that the new allegations exceed the scope of the Court’s January 14, 2026 order granting Ojadidi leave to amend after EBF’s successful demurrer to the cross-complaint.

In opposition, Ojadidi argues he has an absolute right to file an amended crosscomplaint adding new parties and causes of action at any time without prior court approval pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50, subdivision (b), as no trial

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. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Parts of 1st Amended Cross Complaint in Department 8D

date has been set.[1]

Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50, states:

(a) A party shall file a cross-complaint against any of the parties who filed the complaint or cross-complaint against him or her before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint or cross-complaint.

(b) Any other cross-complaint may be filed at any time before the court has set a date for trial.

(c) A party shall obtain leave of court to file any cross-complaint except one filed within the time specified in subdivision (a) or (b). Leave may be granted in the interest of justice at any time during the course of the action.

Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 provide statutory rules for the filing of a crosscomplaint against a current or new party to an action. Subdivision (a) provides the timing for filing a cross-complaint against plaintiff, which is allowed as a matter of right if it is filed before or at the same time as the answer. Subdivision (b) applies to a crosscomplaint filed against third parties. (See Loney v. Superior Court (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 719, 722 [explaining that subdivision (b) deals with third-party crosscomplaints].)

After expiration of the time in which a pleading can be amended, an amendment may only be made by obtaining the Court's permission. (Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613; Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a).) This generally requires a noticed motion for leave to amend. (Ibid.)

Here, Section 428.50(b) is inapplicable as Ojadidi has filed an amended crosscomplaint against the original plaintiff, EBF, that also adds new causes of action against EBF as well as joining new parties to those causes of action (as well as one new cause of action solely against one new party). Thus, subdivision (a) governs when Ojadidi may file as of right (before or at the same time as the answer), and the general rules applicable to then amendment of pleadings after a demurrer apply. Specifically, absent an express statement of leave by the trial court to add entirely new causes of action, when a demurrer is sustained with leave to amend, that leave is properly construed as permission to amend the causes of action as to which the demurrer was sustained. (People ex rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. v. Clausen (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 770, 785).

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. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Parts of 1st Amended Cross Complaint in Department 8D

The Court finds that Ojadidi exceeded the Court’s order granting leave to amend following the sustained demurrer by adding new causes of action and new parties to the FACC. Thus, Ojadidi must bring a noticed motion for leave to amend to add his new causes of action and new parties.

Thus, the Court will strike the following portions of the FACC, without leave to amend, but without prejudice to Ojadidi filing a properly noticed motion for leave to amend:

1. Caption, paragraph 3, page 1, lines 24 and 25 2. Caption, paragraph 4, page 1, line 26 3. Third Cause of Action, page 23, line 19, through page 24, line 7 4. Fifth Cause of Action, page 26, line 8, through page 27, line 2 5. Sixth Cause of Action, page 27, line 4, through page 28, line 11 6. Seventh Cause of Action, page 28, line 13, through page 19, line 25 7. Eighth Cause of Action, page 29, line 27, through page 31, line 12 8. Ninth Cause of Action, page 31, line 14, through page 32, line 19

EBF’s motion to strike the portion of the prayer seeking punitive damages at page 34, lines 14 and 15 is GRANTED, with leave to amend. The Court has sustained EBF’s demurrer to the second and fourth causes of action in the FACC with leave to amend. Thus, Plaintiff has not sufficiently plead a cause of action that would entitle him to recover punitive damages.

IV.

Disposition

Accordingly, EBF’s motion to strike is GRANTED in its entirety.

Ojadidi may file and serve a second amended cross-complaint no later than September 15, 2026 to cure the defects regarding allegations of punitive damages identified in the Court’s ruling on this motion to strike and defects identified in the concurrent ruling on EBF’s demurrer.

This ruling is without prejudice to Ojadidi filing a properly noticed motion for leave to amend to add new causes of action or new parties. This Court makes no ruling regarding addition of Doe defendants as no such amendments are before the Court at this time.

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. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Parts of 1st Amended Cross Complaint in Department 8D

Although not required by Court rule or statute, Ojadidi is directed to present a copy of this order when the amended cross-complaint is presented for filing. EBF shall file and serve its response within 30 days thereafter, 35 days if the amended cross-complaint is served by mail.

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.)

[1] Ojadidi also asserts that this matter should be continued to be heard after the Court’s

ruling on the Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Court declines to continue the instant matter until after the hearing on the motion to compel arbitration. Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.4 states, in relevant part:

If an application has been made to a court of competent jurisdiction, whether in this State or not, for an order to arbitrate a controversy which is an issue involved in an action or proceeding pending before a court of this State and such application is undetermined, the court in which such action or proceeding is pending shall, upon motion of a party to such action or proceeding, stay the action or proceeding until the application for an order to arbitrate is determined and, if arbitration of such controversy is ordered, until an arbitration is had in accordance with the order to arbitrate or until such earlier time as the court specifies.

As no such motion was filed, the Court, in its discretion, considers the merits of the motion. The Court notes that it has continued the hearings on EBF’s demurrer and motion to strike to be heard on the same date as Ojadidi’s motion to compel arbitration and motion to quash.