DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV001392·sacramento·Civil·Civil
Hearing 3 months agoDROPPED for defective service

EBF HOLDINGS, LLC vs JMGJ GROUP INC., et al.

Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

Hearing date
Jun 1, 2026
Department
8D
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffEBF HOLDINGS, LLC
DefendantJMGJ GROUP INC.
DefendantJacque Chokrola Ojadidi
Cross-DefendantRecovery Solutions Group
Cross-DefendantScott Crocker
Cross-DefendantJewelissa Medkiff

Ruling

25CV001392: EBF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs JMGJ GROUP INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 8D, located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party 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, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

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.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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

25CV001392: EBF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs JMGJ GROUP INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 8D

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 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

TENTATIVE RULING

Cross-Complainant’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Cross-Complainant is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Cross-Complainant is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Cross-Complainant 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 appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Jacque Chokrola Ojadidi’s (“Ojadidi”) Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is DROPPED for defective service.

Ojadidi has filed no proof of service indicating that service was performed. Defective service deprives the court of jurisdiction. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.) While Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant EBF Holdings, LLC as filed an opposition, thus waiving defects in service, Defendant JMGJ Group, Inc., Cross- Defendant Recovery Solutions Group, Cross-Defendant Scott Crocker, and Cross- Defendant Jewelissa Medkiff have filed no opposition.

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. 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 8D

The Court notes that Ojadidi filed a proof of service on the same date as the instant motion. However, the proof of service indicates service of Ojadidi’s opposition to Cross- Defendant’s motion to quash service of summons. Therefore, this proof of service cannot be used to indicate proper service of Ojadidi’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share