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. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that effective April 13, 2026, this department has moved to the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye courthouse located at 500 G Street in Sacramento, CA 95814. All hearings noticed for Department 25 will be heard in Department 8D of the new courthouse. Parties who wish to contest the tentative ruling below must: (1) request a hearing by calling the Department 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 no later than 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, and (2) advise opposing counsel of the request.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the scheduled CMC, the tentative ruling shall become 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. If a hearing is requested, the Court assumes that all parties will appear remotely via Zoom unless the Court orders inperson attendance.

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 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

25CV001392: EBF HOLDINGS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs JMGJ GROUP INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 8D

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendant is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Defendant is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Defendant 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 Jacque Chokrola Ojadidi’s (“Ojadidi”) Motion to Quash Service of Summons is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This action arises out of a business relationship between Ojadidi, Defendant JMGJ Group Inc. (“JMGJ”), and Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant EBF Holdings, LLC (“EBF”).

Plaintiff’s complaint, filed on January 17, 2025, alleges that in June 2024, EBF and JMGJ entered into a “revenue based financing agreement,” by which EBF purchased a portion of “future receipts” from JMGJ. (Compl., ¶¶ 9-11.) Plaintiff alleges that EBF violated the agreement between the parties by “intentionally divert[ing] revenue,” and preventing EBF from obtaining funds to which it was entitled. (Compl., ¶¶ 20, 21.) JMGJ allegedly failed to pay default fees and additional charges. (Compl., ¶¶ 21, 23, 24.)

Plaintiff further alleges that Ojadidi signed a personal guarantee, providing that if JMGJ failed to perform any of its “guaranteed obligations,” EBF could recover from Ojadidi. (Compl., ¶ 25.) The complaint brings causes of action for breach of revenue based financing agreement against JMGJ, fraud against all defendants, negligent misrepresentations and omissions against all defendants, unfair business practices against all defendants, claim and delivery against all defendants, and breach of guaranty against Ojadidi.

On February 13, 2025, Ojadidi filed an Answer. The same day, Ojadidi filed his Cross- Complaint, alleging that EBF breached certain contractual terms, that its demand was fraudulently inflated, and that there was fraudulent impersonation and conspiracy. Ojadidi first filed a motion to quash service of summons approximately ten months later on December 11, 2025.[1]

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. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 8D

On February 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Cross-Complaint. Ojadidi alleges that EBF breached certain contractual terms, that its demand was fraudulently inflated, and that there was fraudulent impersonation and conspiracy. FACC at p. 8, ¶¶ 3-4, p. 12, ¶¶ 9-11.) The FACC alleges causes of action for breach of contract against EBF, fraud/fraudulent settlement practices and criminal impersonation against EBF and cross-defendant Jewelissa Medkiff (“Medkiff”), usury/unlawful loan against EBF, intentional tort/civil conspiracy to commit fraud and criminal impersonation against EBF, Medkiff, and Recovery Solutions Group, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against EBF, unfair business practices against all crossdefendants, alter ego against cross-defendant Scott Crocker (“Crocker”), intentional interference with business relations against all cross-defendants, and intentional infliction of emotional distress against all cross-defendants.

Ojadidi now moves to quash service of summons of the Complaint in this action on the grounds that he was never served with the summons, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 418.10.

EBF opposes, arguing that Ojadidi has long since appeared in the instant action, and that the instant motion is not timely.[2]

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure 418.10 provides that “on or before the last day of his or her time to plead” a defendant may bring a motion to quash service of summons. (Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10(a)(1).) Subdivision (e) of section 418.10 provides that a defendant “may make a motion under this section and simultaneously answer, demur, or move to strike the complaint.” (emphasis added) Subdivision (e)(3) of section 418.10 provides: “Failure to make a motion under this section at the time of filing a demurrer or motion to strike constitutes a waiver of the issues of lack of personal jurisdiction, inadequacy of process, inadequacy of service of process, inconvenient forum, and delay in prosecution.”

Where a party first files a motion to quash service of summons, subsequent filings do not constitute an appearance, “unless the court denies the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 418.10(e)(1); State Farm General Ins. Co. v. JT's Frames, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 429, 440.) However, “[i]t does not mean that a defendant may take action which constitutes a general appearance and then negate the effect of that action by a subsequent motion to quash.” (Factor Health Management v. Superior Court (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 246, 250–252.)

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. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 8D

“A general appearance by a party is equivalent to personal service of summons on such party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 410.50, subd. (a).) “A general appearance operates as a consent to jurisdiction of the person, dispensing with the requirement of service of process, and curing defects in service.” (Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Sparks Construction, Inc. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1145 (quotations and citation omitted).) “A general appearance can make up for a complete failure to serve a summons.” (Ibid. [holding that once the defendants filed answers, “they became subject to the trial court’s personal jurisdiction and lost their right to quash the service”].) Court have held that propounding discovery also constitutes a general appearance. (Factor Health Management, supra, Cal.App.4th 246, 251-252.)

Discussion

Ojadidi argues that his filing of a cross-complaint does not waive his rights to bring a motion to quash service of summons, as “he did not understand the full procedural implications of filing defensively, and he has consistently maintained that he was never properly served.” (Mtn., p. 5:7-9, citing Sobremonte v. Superior Court (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 980 [found that the moving party had waived its right to arbitration be litigating the action and engaging in unreasonable delay before seeking to enforce arbitration rights].) Ojadidi asserts, without citation to any authority, that ‘[a] pro se litigant’s defensive filings should not be construed as a knowing and intentional waive of jurisdictional objections.” (Mtn., p. 5:8-10.)

As an initial matter, as Ojadidi raises his status as a self-represented litigant, the Court notes that self-represented litigants are to be treated like any other party, entitled to the same but no greater consideration than other litigant or attorney. (See, e.g., Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; Barton v. New United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1210.) They are required to follow the procedural rules that govern civil litigation. (See, e.g., McComber v.

Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 522-523.) In fact, at least one appellate decision states that a rule either requiring or permitting special treatment of parties who represent themselves “would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation.” (Kobayashi v. Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 536, 543.) Plaintiff’s status as a pro se litigant does not entitle him to any special treatment, nor increased scrutiny, due to her lack of legal training or experience. (See, e.g., Nelson v Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638-639.)

In this case, approximately ten months prior to bringing a motion to quash, Ojadidi filed an answer and an initial cross-complaint. Subsequently and prior to the hearing on the initial motion to quash, which was ultimately dropped for defective service, Ojadidi and

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. 08/31/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons in Department 8D

an amended cross-complaint.

The language of section 418.10 makes it clear that only where a motion to quash is filed prior or simultaneous to responsive pleadings does the defendant avoid waiver of his rights to bring a motion to quash service of summons. Here, Ojadidi made a general appearance in this matter by filing an answer and cross-complaint well before filing a motion to quash. As such, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 410.50, Ojadidi made a general appearance that “equivalent to personal service of summons on such party.” Ojadidi’s asserted failure to understand the full procedural implications of these filings is not a basis for the Court to apply the laws that apply equally to all. A selfrepresented litigant “must expect and receive the same treatment as if represented by an attorney – no different, no better, and no worse.” (Taylor v. Bell (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1009.)

Accordingly, the Court finds that Ojadidi made a general appearance in the instant action prior to filing a motion to quash, and thus, he has waived his right to bring a motion to quash service of summons pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 418.10. (See Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., supra, 114 Cal.App.4th at p. 1147 [acknowledging “the long, long line of cases holding that a general appearance waives objections to service”].) Ojadidi’s subsequent filing of a motion to quash does not render his prior appearance invalid.

Disposition

Ojadidi’s motion to quash service of summons is DENIED in its entirety.

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

[1] Ojadidi’s first motion to quash service of summons was dropped for defective service

on May 6, 2026. [2] The Court declines to rule on EBF’s objections, as the evidence challenged is not

relevant to the disposition of this motion.