Maniam Enterprises, LLC v. Isaac Barrera et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: September 8, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. You must also contact the other side before 4:00 P.M. to inform them that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

9:00 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 24CV434168 Toll Bros, Inc. v. Application for the sale of a dwelling. (Code Civ. Proc., § 704.750.) By Lefco Inc., a stipulation of the parties, the application is CONTINUED to February 23, California 2027, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 10. The stipulation and order filed Corporation September 3, 2026, will be the order of the court. Line 2 25CV477176 Maniam Click LINE 2 or scroll down for ruling. Enterprises, LLC v. Isaac Barrera et al. Line 3 26CV486559 Eric Wiedemann Click LINE 3 or scroll down for ruling. v. Juggernaut Consulting, LLC et al. Line 4 26CV489001 Sophie Shen v. Click LINE 4 or scroll down for ruling. Fasikl, Ltd. et al. Line 5 25CV467743 Ana Pace v. Click LINE 5 or scroll down for ruling. Crest Enterprises, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company et al.

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113

DATE: September 8, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, you must call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. You must also contact the other side before 4:00 P.M. to inform them that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

Line 6 25CV467743 Ana Pace v. Click LINE 5 or scroll down for ruling. Crest Enterprises, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company et al.

- oo0oo -

Calendar Line 2 Case Name: Maniam Enterprises LLC v. Isaac Barrera et al. Case No.: 25CV477176

Receiver’s petition for instructions regarding receivership. The receiver was appointed following a hearing in January 2026 to control Salt and Lime LLC and the restaurant Distrito Federal. The underlying case involves a complaint by plaintiff Maniam Enterprises LLC defendant Isaac Barrera, alleging causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of operating agreement. The allegations relate to Barrera’s management of the restaurant. Default judgment was entered against Barrera for a total of $523,488.02 in August 2026 after a default prove-up hearing.

In the instant petition for instructions, the receiver reports that the receivership estate is insolvent and that the subject restaurant was shuttered due to lack of funds. The receiver presents two options for the court: (1) instruct the receiver to accept a current bona fide sale offer for the business, conditioned on the court ordering the parties to the case to fund the receivership estate with $75,000 for broker commissions, tax obligations, receivership fees, or other closing costs; or (2) instruct the receiver to wind down the receivership and return the corporation and restaurant to the parties (along with any pending or potential purchase offers).

Plaintiff’s reply contends that the receiver is in a better position to negotiate the sale of the restaurant. But plaintiff does not want to fund the receivership estate with $75,000. Plaintiff’s counsel declares, apparently based on discussions with counsel for the receiver, that the necessary amount is now approximately $39,910 because expenses have reduced due to the restaurant closing. Plaintiff proposes that the court order the receiver to issue certificates of indebtedness to raise the necessary money. Plaintiff alternatively contends any costs should be levied against Barrera. Those positions are untenable. The receiver is currently operating without funding. Neither of plaintiff’s proposals are likely to provide funding on an adequately swift timeline. If plaintiff wishes to continue benefiting from the receiver’s services, plaintiff will need to fund the receivership estate.

The court adopts the receiver’s option one, with modification as to the amount of funding. Plaintiff is ordered to fund the receivership estate with $40,000 no later than September 16, 2026. If that funding occurs, the receiver may pursue the purchase offer received by the receiver’s broker in August 2026 (and any other bona fide offers), or otherwise liquidate the business assets of the receivership estate. If that funding does not occur, the receiver may turn over to the parties any pending or potential purchase offers; return the business and all assets to the parties; and wind down the receivership.

The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -

4