CHARLES KING VS. ERIC STUART, ET AL.

May 19, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 10 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 5 23-CIV-01887 CHARLES KING VS. ERIC STUART, ET AL.

CHARLES KING PRO SE ERIC STUART

MOTION TO DEEM THE TRUTH OF MATTERS SPECIFIED IN ITS REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS SET ONE

CONTINUED FROM 4/7/2026

TENTATIVE RULING:

These four discovery motions brought by defendants AVG Investment, LLC and Alex Rubashevesky were originally scheduled to be heard on April 7, 2026, but due to plaintiff Charles King’s unavailability on that date, were continued to May 19, 2026. The court rules on them as follows: While plaintiff has not filed any opposition to any of the three motions, on May 5, 2026, he filed a motion for relief from deemed admissions, which is set for hearing on June 28, 2026 (plaintiff had scheduled the hearing for May 19, 2026, but the date was changed by the clerk’s office due to calendar unavailability on May 19, 2026).

In the proposed order, plaintiff attaches signed and verified responses to the request for admissions, which responses contain no objections. (Proposed Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief From Deemed Admissions filed May 6, 2026.) Plaintiff’s motion has in the table of contents a reference to a proof of service on page 11, but no proof of service is included and there are only six pages in his motion. The proposed order does not have a proof of service and there is no stand alone proof of service in the file.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c), if a party prior to the hearing serves a response in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220, the court does not deem the requests admitted. (St. Mary v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 762, 778.) Here, the responses are in substantial compliance: they have no objections, deny the requests, and are verified. However, there is no evidence that they have been served, another requirement. Thus, unless plaintiff demonstrates prior to the hearing by email to Department 4 and defendants that the responses have been served on defendants and he properly contests the tentative ruling and appears at the hearing (Zoom appearances are allowed), the motion is denied and the facts are deemed admitted.

If plaintiff shows proof of service on defendants prior to the hearing, the motion to deem the facts admitted is denied. If he fails to follow this procedure, the motion is granted However, whether the motion is denied or granted, monetary sanctions are mandatory. (Code Civ. Proc. 2033.280, sub. (c).) Defendants request $1,140.00 in sanctions. The court finds that sanctions of $675.00 of attorney time (three hours at $225.00, a reasonable rate) plus $60.00 for the filing fee for total sanctions of $735.00, which sanctions are to be paid within thirty (30) days of notice of entry of order.

May 19, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 11 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________ As to the other discovery motions, plaintiff has not filed any opposition to the motion to compel plaintiff to provide responses to form interrogatories, set one and set two, special interrogatories, set one and set two, and request for production of documents, set one and set two. Accordingly, without any evidence that responses have been provided, the court GRANTS the motion. Plaintiff shall serve verified responses without objection within twenty (20) days after notice of entry of order.

Sanctions are also required for these other discovery motions unless the court finds that the responding party acted with substantial justification or that there are other circumstances that make the imposition of sanctions unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.290, subd. (c) [interrogatories]; § 2031.300, subd. (c) [request for production of documents].) The court thus awards sanctions in the amount of two hours of attorney time at $225.00 per hour for each motion, i.e., six hours of time, in the amount of $1,300.00 plus $60.00 each in filing fees for the three motions, i.e., $180.00 for a total of $1,530.00, which sanctions are to be paid within thirty (30) days of notice of entry of order.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, counsel for defendants shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in the action, as required by law and the California Rules of Court.

May 19, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 12 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 6 23-CIV-01887 CHARLES KING VS. ERIC STUART, ET AL.

CHARLES KING PRO SE ERIC STUART

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, SET ONE AND SET TWO

CONTINUED FROM 4/7/2026

TENTATIVE RULING:

See tentative motion to deem the truth of matters specified in its request for admissions set one

May 19, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 13 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 7 23-CIV-01887 CHARLES KING VS. ERIC STUART, ET AL.

CHARLES KING PRO SE ERIC STUART

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND SET TWO

CONTINUED FROM 4/7/2026

TENTATIVE RULING:

See tentative motion to deem the truth of matters specified in its request for admissions set one

May 19, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 14 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 8 23-CIV-01887 CHARLES KING VS. ERIC STUART, ET AL.

CHARLES KING PRO SE ERIC STUART

MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO FORM INTERROGATORIES, SET ONE AND SET TWO

CONTINUED FROM 4/7/2026

TENTATIVE RULING:

See tentative motion to deem the truth of matters specified in its request for admissions set one

May 19, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 15 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

2:00 PM LINE 9 24-CIV-05601 CORRINA RENTERIA AQUINO VS. DAVID ANDREAS FUCHS

CORRINA RENTERIA AQUINO LAWRENCE S. VIOLA DAVID ANDREAS FUCHS DEBORAH A. STEVENS

PLAINTIFF CORRINA RENTERIA AQUINO’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Motion of Plaintiff Corrina Renteria Aquino (“Plaintiff”) for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiff seeks leave to file the proposed First Amended Complaint adding a cause of action for Fraudulent Transfer/Voidable Transaction under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (“UVTA”) against Jennifer Rietfors (“Rietfors”), defendant David Andreas Fuchs’ wife.

Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), provides:

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect; and may, upon like terms, enlarge the time for answer or demurrer. The court may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars; and may upon like terms allow an answer to be made after the time limited by this code.

Motions for leave to amend are directed to the sound discretion of the judge, but that discretion must be “exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. The policy favoring amendment is so strong that it is a rare case in which denial of leave to amend can be justified.” (Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) “With respect to the amendment of pleadings, there has developed in this state a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others.” (Dunzweiler v.

Superior Court (1968) 267 Cal.App.2d 569, 576.) If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion. (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530 [collecting citations.].) Recently, two different Courts of Appeal have reversed a trial court who refused leave to amend after a demurrer, even where it appeared doubtful that plaintiff could state a cause of action.