Eric Wiedemann v. Juggernaut Consulting, LLC 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 3 Case Name: Eric Wiedemann v. Juggernaut Consulting, LLC et al. Case No.: 26CV486559

Plaintiff Eric Wiedemann’s application for writ of possession. Notice is not proper. There is no proof of service attached to the February 19, 2026, application. The application is opposed by Juggernaut Consulting, LLC (Juggernaut); April Mora; and Gavin Mora.

Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed the original and still operative complaint in February 2026. It is not verified. It alleges defendants breached a business purchase agreement, under which plaintiff sold defendants the Red Light Day Spa.

The day after filing the complaint, plaintiff filed a notice of application for writ of possession. Page three of that filing is Judicial Council Form CD-100, an application for writ of possession. Boxes are checked indicating that the basis for the claim and right to possession are the “verified complaint”; “a written document, a copy of which is attached”; and “the attached declaration.” The application states the claimed property is: “Personal property as collateral as identified in Schedule A, including equipment, fixtures, inventory, devices, and related personal property located at 16579 Los Gatos Almaden Rd, Los Gatos, CA 95032.”

No documents are attached to the application. The application is not accompanied by a proof of service. There is a proof of electronic service filed on February 25, 2026, indicating plaintiff served a document called, “Combined Notice – Writ Filing and Ex Parte Undertaking Waiver Request.” No document in this case has that name.

Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction in March 2026. The court denied that application by written order, stating: “Plaintiff Eric Wiedemann’s ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause re preliminary injunction is denied without prejudice to the filing of a noticed motion for preliminary injunction under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.” (3/3/26 order.) Plaintiff never filed a noticed motion.

Factual Background

None of what follows was included in the application under consideration here. The court has reviewed the record to find this information, for the sake of completeness. It is undisputed that plaintiff (on behalf of Red Light Day Spa, LLC) and defendant April Mora (on behalf of Juggernaut) signed a business purchase agreement in March 2025. Plaintiff agreed to sell Juggernaut the Red Light Day Spa. The total purchase price was $140,000, payable in installments. Plaintiff was also entitled to revenue sharing. The transaction closed, by the agreement’s terms, 30 days “from signing.” Plaintiff agreed to indemnify Juggernaut against unpaid debts incurred prior to the closing date.

A statement of information was filed with the Secretary of State in March 2025 for Red Light Day Spa, LLC. It lists April Mora as the chief executive officer and the only manager or member of Red Light Day Spa, LLC. (Exh. 3 to 7/14/26 Mora dec.) A UCC 1 Financing Statement was filed with the Secretary of State in April 2025, listing as debtors Juggernaut;

April Mora; and Red Light Day Spa. The secured party’s name is Red Light Day Spa, LLC. Plaintiff is not mentioned on the filing.

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges defendants failed to make required payments under the agreement. Defendants’ cross-complaints allege plaintiff defrauded them by, among other things, failing to disclose business debt incurred before the sale. (Juggernaut cross-complaint, p. 5:5-17.)

Legal Standard

An application for a prejudgment writ of possession for personal property may be filed by a plaintiff to a civil action. “The application shall be executed under oath and shall include all of the following: (1) A showing of the basis of the plaintiff’s claim and that the plaintiff is entitled to possession of the property claimed. If the basis of the plaintiff’s claim is a written instrument, a copy of the instrument shall be attached.; (2) A showing that the property is wrongfully detained by the defendant, of the manner in which the defendant came into possession of the property, and, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the reason for the detention.; (3) A particular description of the property and a statement of its value.; (4) A statement, according to the best knowledge, information, and belief of the plaintiff, of the location of the property and, if the property, or some part of it, is within a private place which may have to be entered to take possession, a showing that there is probable cause to believe that such property is located there.; (5) A statement that the property has not been taken for a tax, assessment, or fine, pursuant to a statute; or seized under an execution against the property of the plaintiff; or, if so seized, that it is by statute exempt from such seizure.” (Code Civ.

Proc., § 512.010; unspecified statutory references are to this Code.) A court will issue a writ of possession if it finds both that (1) plaintiff has established the probable validity of plaintiff’s claim to possession of the property; and (2) the undertaking requirements of section 515.010 are satisfied. “A claim has ‘probable validity’ where it is more likely than not that the plaintiff will obtain a judgment against the defendant on that claim.” (§ 511.090.)

Self-represented litigants are entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (County of Orange v. Smith (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1444.)

Analysis

Plaintiff’s application is procedurally deficient. It is not accompanied by a proof of service. Even if the proof of electronic service filed on February 25, 2026, could be construed as having served the application, that service would be ineffectual because defendants had not appeared in the action. (§ 512.030, subd. (b) [“If the defendant has not appeared in the action, and a writ, notice, order, or other paper is required to be personally served on the defendant under this title, service shall be made in the same manner as a summons is served under Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 413.10) of Title 5.”].)

The application is also not supported by any evidence; no documents are attached to it and the complaint is unverified. The reference to “collateral as identified in Schedule A” does not adequately describe the property. The court cannot locate a document titled “Schedule A” in the record. Plaintiff’s declaration in support of his reply asserts it was submitted “with the writ papers.” Assuming he means the March 2026 ex parte application for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, those documents were filed after the application at issue here.

The exhibits to that 6

ex parte application were also not properly authenticated. The application must be denied for these reasons.

Even if the court overlooked those deficiencies, the application would still be denied. Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden to show the probable validity of his claim to possession of any property associated with the business. Almost every fact in this case has been hotly contested. Among other things, Juggernaut’s cross-complaint alleges that plaintiff misrepresented the brand name of the business equipment that was sold with the business. (Juggernaut cross-complaint, ¶ 11-12.) The court does not accept that allegation as true, but it does create uncertainty as to the accuracy of the unauthenticated “Itemized Resale Schedule” that plaintiff appears to assert is the Schedule A referenced in the application. There are simply too many disputed facts for the court to make a finding of probable validity.

Conclusion

The application for writ of possession is denied.

The court will prepare the order.

- oo0oo -

7