458 Seb Ave LLC. v. Anderson

The Court has received the Discovery Facilitator’s recommendation that it grant the motion to quash the subpoena for Plaintiff’s employment records except for records relating to any dispute or discipline regarding the confidentiality of counseling records. It is further recommended that any such documents be produced to the Discovery Facilitator for his review to determine if they are discoverable. The Court now adopts the Discovery Facilitator’s recommendations.

D. Discovery Facilitator Fees

The Discovery Facilitator has also advised that fees for his services are now outstanding. As the Parties are aware, the Discovery Facilitator Program and its volunteers offer two (2) free hours of service free of charge. From then onward, the parties may agree to continue with the discovery facilitator provided that agreement is reached between and among the parties and the discovery facilitator as to compensation of the discovery facilitator. (Local Rule 4.14 (F)). The Facilitator’s Report details $3,900.00 in fees ($650/hr. x 6 hours), sans the free hours, have been incurred to the handling of this matter. The Court assumes the hourly rate was discussed with the Parties prior to the incurrent of such time and fees. Consequently, the Court orders payment of these fees be split equally between the Parties.

III. Conclusion and Order

The motion is GRANTED EXCEPT as to records relating to any dispute or discipline regarding the confidentiality of counseling records. As to these, Cor-Shoreline is directed to produce these to Mr. Shapiro for his review to determine whether any are discoverable. Sanctions are denied. Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling and in compliance with Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312.

2. 24CV01984, 458 Seb Ave LLC. v. Anderson

(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. OSCAR A. PARDO)

IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.

19. PLEASE USE DEPT. 19’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).

I.

Introduction

Plaintiff 458 SEB AVE LLC (“Plaintiff”) moves for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendant Eric Gustav Anderson (“Defendant Anderson”) from acting or representing himself to third parties as Plaintiff’s manager, Tax Matters Partner, Winding-Up Partner, or owner, in any capacity, as well as explicitly precluding Defendant Anderson from (i) transferring any funds or real property owned by Plaintiff; (ii) filing any tax related documentation to the IRS and California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”); and (iii) submitting documentation to the California Secretary of State. The motion is brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 525 through 527, as well as California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1150 and on the grounds that Andreas Pfanner (“Pfanner”), and not Defendant Anderson, is Plaintiff’s sole manager and one hundred percent (100%) owner.

Despite Plaintiff's notarized corporate documents to this effect, Plaintiff argues Defendant Anderson has refused and continues to refuse to recognize Pfanner’s role and has now (1) submitted erroneous and fraudulent Statements of Information to the California Secretary of State on Plaintiff’s behalf, in addition to having (2) filed and submitted erroneous tax returns to the IRS and California FTB on behalf of Plaintiff. Plaintiff argues it will suffer irreparable injury if Defendant Anderson is not enjoined from acting or representing himself to third parties as 3 Plaintiff’s manager, Tax Matters Partner, Winding-Up Partner, or owner, in any capacity, including specifically by transferring any funds or real property owned by Plaintiff and/or filing or amending any tax related documentation or submissions to the California Secretary of State.

II. Legal Standards

The trial courts consider two interrelated questions in deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction: 1) are the plaintiffs likely to suffer greater injury from a denial of the injunction than the defendants are likely to suffer from its grant; and 2) is there a reasonable probability that the plaintiffs will prevail on the merits. (Robbins v. Superior Court (1985) 38 Cal.3d 199, 205.) If plaintiff will suffer great and immediate harm from the denial of the requested injunction and the alleged harm to defendants is minimal, this meets the first prong of the test for issuance of a preliminary injunction. (Id., at p. 207.) It is an abuse of discretion in such instance not to grant the preliminary injunction. (Id., at p. 205.)

III.

Analysis

This court recently granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment establishing that Pfanner is the 100% owner and manager of Plaintiff. As such, Plaintiff has already prevailed on the merits of this action. In addition, Plaintiff has provided evidence that Defendant Anderson has taken actions on behalf of Plaintiff which has caused harm to it. As determined in Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, On June 9, 2023, Pfanner and Defendants Anderson executed the Second Amendment to the Operating Agreement for Plaintiff whereby Pfanner would become the 100% member and sole manager of Plaintiff upon an additional capital contribution of $1,110,712.50. (Plaintiff’s MSJ, UMF No. 2; Pfanner decl., ¶6.) Pfanner was later informed that the amount needed to pay off the loan was $1,103,564.50, which he paid. (Plaintiff’s MSJ, UMF 3, 4.)

Despite this, Pfanner recently learned that Defendant Anderson caused to be filed with the California Secretary of State a Statement of Information (“November SOI”) erroneously identifying himself as Plaintiff’s sole manager/member. (Pfanner decl., ¶8.) The November SOI is dated November 21, 2025, and lists Defendant Anderson as Plaintiff’s manager or member. (Descamps decl., ¶5, Exhibit G.) Plaintiff did not authorize the submission of this November SOI, and has since submitted a corrected Statement of Information. (Pfanner decl., ¶6.)

Pfanner also recently discovered that Defendant Anderson on Plaintiff’s behalf submitted erroneous and fraudulent tax returns for 2023 and 2024. (Pfanner decl., ¶9, Exhibit E.) Plaintiff did not authorize the preparation or submission of these Fraudulent Tax Returns and had no notice they would be filed. (Pfanner decl., ¶10.) Upon learning of their existence, Pfanner demanded that Defendant Anderson’s accountant, Mr. Steven Spaeth, withdraw the Fraudulent Tax Returns; Pfanner has not received a response. (Ibid.)

The balance of equities clearly weighs in Plaintiff’s favor as it is likely to suffer an injury from a denial of this motion and Defendant Anderson will suffer no harm from granting it. Plaintiff has now shown concrete actions taken by Defendant Anderson contrary to Plaintiff’s interest, and Defendant Anderson’s propensity to act on Plaintiff’s behalf without authorization.

IV.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED. Defendant Eric Gustav Anderson is prohibited from: 1. Acting or representing himself to third parties as Plaintiff’s manager, Tax Matters Partner, Winding-Up Partner, or owner, in any capacity; 2. Transferring any funds or real property owned by Plaintiff; 3. Filing any tax related documentation with the IRS and/or California Franchise Tax Board (“FTB”); and 4. Submitted documentation on behalf of Plaintiff to the California Secretary of State. 4

Plaintiff’s counsel is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling.

3. 25CV06391, Ortiz v. Blackhorse Security Inc., a California corporation

(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. OSCAR A. PARDO)

IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.

19. PLEASE USE DEPT. 19’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).

Defendant Blackhorse Security Inc. moves for an order compelling Plaintiff Vilma Ortiz to submit her claims, including her individual PAGA claims, to binding arbitration; dismissing Plaintiff’s putative class claims; and staying all remaining judicial proceedings pending completion of arbitration.

On July 16, 2026, Plaintiff Vilma Ortiz (“Plaintiff”) filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion. Plaintiff states that after reviewing Defendant’s moving papers and participating in meetand-confer discussions with Defendant’s counsel, Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss Plaintiff’s class claims pursuant to the arbitration agreement and the parties are in the process of resolving Plaintiff’s individual claims through settlement. Plaintiff states the parties have reached a tentative agreement on the material terms of settlement and Plaintiff anticipates the parties will execute a formal settlement agreement shortly.

Accordingly, Plaintiff requests that the hearing on the Motion to Compel Arbitration be vacated to allow the parties additional time to finalize the settlement and file a dismissal of this action. As the parties are in the process of settling this matter, the hearing on Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration is taken off calendar. This matter remains calendar for a Case Management Conference on 09/08/26 at 3:00pm in Dept.

16. The Court will follow up with the Parties on the status of the settlement at that time.

4. MCV-258216, Espinoza Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Ludloff

(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. JANE GASKELL)

IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.

17. PLEASE USE DEPT. 17’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).

Plaintiff Espinoza Bail Bonds, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) moves to amend the judgment entered in this action.

1. Judgment

On January 5, 2023, a default judgment was entered in Plaintiff’s favor against Defendant Heather Ludloff aka Heather Ann Ludloff in the amount of $10,551.46.

2. Jose Espinoza dba Espinoza Bail Bonds

The Plaintiff in this action was Espinoza Bail Bonds, Inc. Plaintiff’s counsel states that subsequent to entry of the default judgment, he learned that Plaintiff is not a corporation. Rather, Jose Espinoza does business as Espinoza Bail Bonds. Plaintiff argues the use of the “Inc.” in the name was a clerical error which can be corrected.

a. CCP section 473 5