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. 01/14/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint in Department 25

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 Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 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 25 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 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 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

25CV001392: EBF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs JMGJ GROUP INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 01/14/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint in Department 25

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.

TENTATIVE RULING

Cross-Defendant’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Cross-Defendant’s counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel/self-represented party forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Cross-Defendant’s counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel/self-represented party prior to the hearing, Cross- Defendant’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel/self-represented party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant EBF Holdings, LLC’s (“Cross-Defendant”) Motion to Strike Portions of Defendant and Cross-Complainant Jacque Chokrola Ojadidi’s (“Cross- Complainant”) Cross-Complaint (“CC”) is ruled upon as follows.

Cross-Complainant’s request for judicial notice is denied. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(l), “[a]ny request for judicial notice must be made in a separate document listing the specific items for which notice is requested and must comply with rule 3.1306(c).” Cross-Complainant failed to file his request for judicial notice as a separate document. The Court further notes that the items Cross-Complainant seeks judicial notice of are not appropriate for judicial notice and were not relevant in ruling on the instant motion.

Factual Background

This action arises out of a business relationship between Cross-Defendant and Defendant JMGJ Group Inc. (“JMGJ”). Cross-Defendant’s complaint alleges that Cross- Defendant and JMGJ entered into an agreement by which Cross-Defendant 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 Cross-Defendant attempted to withdraw its due payments, the account had insufficient funds. (Compl., ¶¶ 26-29.)

The form Cross-Complaint brings causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, civil

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. 01/14/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint in Department 25

conspiracy, damage to business reputation and character, misrepresentation, and failure to report payments to credit bureaus. The Cross-Complaint alleges that Cross- Defendant breached the agreement by failing to report payments to credit bureaus. This failure to report payments made to credit bureaus damaged Cross-Complainant’s credit, preventing future business opportunities. The Cross-Complaint alleges 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 further seeks repayment of late fees.

Cross-Defendant now moves to strike the following allegation from page 7 of the Cross- Complaint:

Plaintiff alleges defendant was guilty of malice, fraud, oppression .... The amount of exemplary damages sought is ... $2,500,000.00

Cross-Complainant opposes.

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 punitive damages allegation by way of a motion to strike. (Grieves v. Superior Court (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 435, a defendant, within the time to respond to a complaint, may file a motion to strike the whole or any part of the pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. § 435, subd. (b)(1).)

Discussion

Cross-Defendant argues that the requested portion of the CC be stricken, as the CC fails to state sufficient facts to support the recovery of punitive damages. Cross- Defendant argues that the allegations of the CC do not rise to the level of despicable

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. 01/14/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Cross-Complaint in Department 25

conduct with conscious disregard for Cross-Complainant’s rights. In opposition, Cross- Complainant argues that Cross-Defendant has engaged in abusive conduct following Cross-Complainant’s default. However, no such allegations are included in the Cross- Complaint. Further, the Court is not convinced that all of such allegations, as described by Cross-Complainant in his opposition, would be sufficient to give rise to a claim for punitive damages.

In ruling on a motion to strike punitive damages, “judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.” (Clauson v. Superior Court (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) To state a prima facie claim for punitive damages, a plaintiff must allege the elements set forth in the punitive damages statute, Civil Code section 3294. (College Hosp., Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 721.) Per Civil Code section 3294, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice. (Civ. Code, § 3294, subd. (a).) Further, a plaintiff (or cross-complainant) must assert facts with specificity to support a conclusion that a defendant acted with oppression, fraud or malice. (See Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1041-1042.)

As currently pled and as set forth in the Court’s order regarding Cross-Defendant’s demurrer to Cross-Complainant’s cause of action for fraud, the CC does not contain sufficient specific factual allegations which would support a finding of oppression, fraud, or malice as necessary for a claim of punitive damages.

As a result, Cross-Defendant's motion to strike punitive damages allegations from the complaint is GRANTED.

Cross-Complainant may file and serve an amended cross-complaint no later than February 18, 2026. Although not required by statute or court rule, Cross-Complainant is directed to present the clerk a copy of this ruling at the time of filing the First Amended Cross-Complaint. Cross-Defendant may file and serve a response within 30 days of service of the First Amended Cross-Complaint, 35 days if served by mail.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.