PPC FOLSOM PARKWAY, L.P. vs FOLSOM TAP HOUSE, INC., et al.

26CV017847: PPC FOLSOM PARKWAY, L.P. vs FOLSOM TAP HOUSE, INC., et al. 09/09/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line for Department 8C at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

26CV017847: PPC FOLSOM PARKWAY, L.P. vs FOLSOM TAP HOUSE, INC., et al. 09/09/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Department 8C

ID: 16039062174

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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

On July, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff PPC Folsom Parkway, L.P.’s (“Plaintiff”) ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against Defendants in pro per Folsom Tap House Inc. (“FTH”) and Richard Walton (“Walton”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and issued an order to show cause (“OSC”) why a preliminary injunction should not issue.

The OSC stated, “Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this Order to Show Cause, the Temporary

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV017847: PPC FOLSOM PARKWAY, L.P. vs FOLSOM TAP HOUSE, INC., et al. 09/09/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Department 8C

Restraining Order set forth below, the ex parte application and all supporting papers, and the Summons and Complaint on Defendants no later than July 29, 2026, at 5pm, by the following manner of service: personal service.” (OSC, ¶ 2.) The OSC also directed Plaintiff to file proof of service by no later than September 1, 2026. On July 28, 2026, Plaintiff filed proofs of service of the Summons and Complaint on Defendants at 25005 Blue Ravine Road, Ste 140 in Folsom on July 28, 2026 at 11:15 a.m. via personal service.

On August 31, 2026, Plaintiff filed a proof of service of the OSC, TRO, and ex parte application and supporting papers. The proof of service identifies the party served only as Walton and states that personal service was made at 3493 Hampton Drive in Folsom on July 28, 2026 at 6:38 p.m. FTH is not listed as a party served on the August 31 proof of service, and there is no separate proof of service showing service of the OSC on FTH. Since there is no evidence that FTH has been served with the OSC in the manner required by the OSC, the matter is DROPPED as to FTH. (See Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 3.1150(a) [OSC must be served in the manner of a summons and complaint when responding party has not appeared in the action]; see also JHVS Group, LLC v. Slate (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 30, 37-38 [when defendant has not appeared in the action, “the rules are clear that the court must first exert a limited authority over the defending party by issuing an order to show cause, served in the same manner as the summons and complaint,” before issuing a preliminary injunction against that defendant].)

Since Walton was properly served with the OSC, the Court will reach the merits as to Walton. The OSC directed Walton to file a response to the OSC by August 26, 2026. No response has been filed. However, on July 28, 2026, Walton filed an opposition directed at Plaintiff’s ex parte application. There is no proof of service of this opposition on file. The opposition is signed by Walton and FTH. A corporate entity “cannot represent itself before courts of record in propria persona, nor can it represent itself through a corporate officer, director or other employee who is not an attorney. It must be represented by licensed counsel in proceedings before courts of record.” (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1151, 1145.) Thus, to the extent the Court considers the opposition in this ruling, it is only considered in relation to Walton, not FTH.

This action involves a commercial lease pertaining to certain premises located at 25005 Blue Ravine Road, Suite 140, Folsom, California 95630. The original lease is between Plaintiff as landlord and Skyworks Enterprises, Inc. (“Skyworks”). In 2023, Skyworks assigned its rights under the lease to FTH. Walton executed a guaranty of the lease at the same time. The lease expired on July 31, 2026. Plaintiff contends that Defendants owe over $67,000 in rent under the lease. Additionally, and at issue in this proceeding, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have refused to surrender the premises in the condition required under the lease and have threatened to remove and sell trade fixtures installed at the premises that are the property of Plaintiff. The TRO enjoins Defendants from removing, selling, transferring, encumbering, disposing of,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV017847: PPC FOLSOM PARKWAY, L.P. vs FOLSOM TAP HOUSE, INC., et al. 09/09/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Department 8C

damaging, or destroying the fixtures and certain items belonging to Plaintiff identified in the lease.

The Complaint contains three causes of action: (1) breach of contract (lease); (2) breach of contract (guaranty); and (3) declaratory relief. The evidence submitted with the TRO application establishes Plaintiff’s likelihood of prevailing on the merits of its claims and that the balance of hardships favor Plaintiff. Walton’s failure to properly file and serve a response to the OSC is construed as a concession on the merits. Additionally, the merits arguments raised in Walton’s opposition to the TRO application are rejected.

Walton contends that Plaintiff cannot show immediate, irreparable harm because the dispute over the fixtures can be remedied by monetary damages. Walton also contends that a tenant has a right to remove fixtures during the tenancy under Civil Code section 1019. Regarding the irreparable harm argument, Plaintiff’s application papers show that Defendants have threatened to file for bankruptcy, in which case the availability of monetary damages would be limited. Regarding Civil Code section 1019, that statute applies to personal property items owned by the tenant and affixed to the landlord’s property. (See Civ.

Code § 1013.) The dispute here involves personal property items that were installed at the premises before Defendants took possession of the premises. Further, “A special agreement between landlord and tenant regarding fixtures supersedes the general rules of law regulating their mutual relations and obligations. Thus, any right of a lessor or lessee under the trade fixture rule may be covenanted away, and where a contract speaks on that subject, it controls the implications that might otherwise arise under the rule.” (Bridges v.

Cal-Pacific Leasing Co. (1971) 16 Cal.App.3d 118, 128.) Here, the lease contains a provision governing the installation and removal of trade fixtures, so Civil Code section 1019 does not apply.

Based on the above, Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED. The TRO is dissolved and the OSC is discharged. The terms of the preliminary injunction shall mirror the terms of the TRO.

Plaintiff posted a $10,000.00 undertaking in connection with the TRO. The TRO states that the $10,000.00 undertaking “shall secure both this Temporary Restraining Order and any preliminary injunction issued in this action.” (TRO, ¶ 8.) Thus, no additional undertaking is required.

Plaintiff shall submit a proposed order consistent with this ruling.