FARR v. RUSH

LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DATE: MAY 26, 2026 TIME: 8:30 A.M.

venue is proper in more than one county is unpersuasive. Plaintiff’s legal authority for that proposition, Karson Industries v. Superior Court (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 7, is inapplicable; that case involved a corporate defendant, not an individual.

No. 24CV01806

FARR v. RUSH

REFEREE’S EX PARTE MOTION TO DEPOSIT FUNDS IN ATTORNEY CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNT, MAKE PAYMENTS AND FOR INSTRUCTIONS

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY DISTRIBUTION OF SALE PROCEEDS AND VACATE OR MODIFY INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT

The referee’s ex parte application to deposit funds in her attorney client trust account and to make payments is moot per the parties’ stipulation and order filed May 19, 2026. The Court denies defendant’s motion to vacate or modify the interlocutory judgment and vacates the preliminary injunction preventing distribution according to the interlocutory judgment.

Defendant has consistently obstructed this litigation forcing the Court to appoint a referee to accomplish the sale of the property. While defendant argues that the interlocutory judgment was obtained by fraud, she failed to assert any plausible evidence of fraud prior to entry of the judgment, and failed to oppose the referee’s final report of sale and order permitting various payments from the proceeds of sale. Her evidence of fraud presented in this motion consists of communications she claims were improper between the referee and plaintiff’s counsel, and other perceived procedural violations by plaintiff’s counsel in his dealings with her. The Court finds none of these constitute fraud.

The Court will set a date for the referee to file her final report following disbursements.

This Court granted an interlocutory judgment on September 16, 2025. Thereafter, on March 23, 2026, the Court heard the unopposed motion by referee approving her final report of sale, approving payment of the loan, and approving her costs and fees. (Order, April 13, 2026.)

On May 8, 2026, defendant Rush appeared ex parte and obtained a TRO to stop the distribution of sale proceeds so her motion to modify the judgment could be heard.

On May 14, 2026, referee moved ex parte to deposit funds into client trust account on the basis that defendant’s TRO was served after close of escrow and payments were made.