Hebert, Rebecca M. v. Jessup, Luke Christopher

EJ-110 in the court’s file. Without service of this language, the 30-day period during which a judgment debtor may move to set aside the judgment has not yet been triggered.

Due to these procedural deficiencies, the motion is denied without prejudice.

Also, even if the court could reach the merits, which it cannot, the court observes the declaration of counsel Fisher submitted in support of this motion is signed and dated December 12, 2026, a date approximately six months into the future.

12. S-CV-0055751 Hebert, Rebecca M. v. Jessup, Luke Christopher

If oral argument is requested, it will be heard in Department 42 by the Honorable Trisha J. Hirashima. Department 42 is located at 10820 Justice Center Drive, Roseville, California 95678.

Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Answer

Defendant’s unopposed motion for leave to file a first amended answer is granted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a).) Defendant shall file and serve his first amended answer by June 12, 2026.

13. S-CV-0055953 Safe Nation Found. v. Wildlife Heritage Found.

Defendant is advised that the notice of demurrer and motion to strike must include notice of the court’s tentative ruling procedures. (Local Rule 20.2.3(C).)

Demurrer to the Complaint

Plaintiff Safe National Foundation, a California Benefit Corporation (formerly Steelheart International Foundation) (“Plaintiff”) alleges that Defendant Wildlife Heritage Foundation, a California Public Benefit Corporation (“Defendant”) improperly interfered with Plaintiff’s efforts to transfer or sell Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”) allocations associated with property subject to a conservation easement (“Conservation Easement”) by delaying approval and imposing conditions allegedly unrelated to conservation purposes.

Plaintiff further alleges the allocations are regulatory extraction allowances, different from traditional groundwater rights and, therefore, either fall outside the Conservation Easement or are subject to approval authority that must be exercised reasonably and in furtherance of the Easement’s conservation objectives. Defendant contends the Conservation Easement unambiguously grants it broad discretionary authority over transfers affecting groundwater-related interests, including SGMA groundwater allocations and that Plaintiff’s claims fail because Defendant merely exercised its expressed rights granted under the Conservation Easement.

On or about January 20, 2026, Defendant demurred as to the First (Breach of Contract), Second (Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing), Third (Intentional Interference with a Prospective Economic Advantage), Fourth (Unfair

10