Joshua Khoshsefat v. Heidi Khoshefat

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 September 3, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

4. JOSHUA KHOSHSEFAT V. HEIDI KHOSHEFAT 24FL0682

On July 30, 2025, Respondent filed a Request for Order (RFO) seeking a variety of orders as stated therein. The parties appeared before the court for hearing on the RFO on July 2nd at which time the court set the matter for trial, continued the issue of the joinder to the present date, and adopted the remainder of the tentative ruling.

On August 21, 2026, Respondent filed a Supplemental Declaration of Heidi Nichelle Khoshsefat in Support of Request for Order (Joinder of Jnae Yeun Sook Khoshsefat). It was served on August 20th.

Petitioner filed and served his supplemental declaration on August 24, 2026.

Respondent filed and served an objection to Petitioner’s supplemental declaration on August 25th. She objects to Petitioner’s supplemental declaration on the basis that it was late filed and did not account for the additional two days required for electronic service. The objection is sustained. The court has not read or considered Petitioner’s August 24, 2025 declaration.

Respondent asks that the court grant joinder of Jane Yeun Sook Khoshsefat.

Petitioner opposes the request and has offered several alternative remedies that may be available to Respondent without the joinder.

Regarding the joinder, “[t]he court may order that a person be joined as a party to the proceeding if the court finds that it would be appropriate to determine the particular issue in the proceeding and that the person to be joined as a party is either indispensable for the court to make an order about that issue or is necessary to the enforcement of any judgment rendered on that issue.” Cal. Rule Ct. 5.24(e)(2).

Here, in light of the additional evidence provided in Respondent’s supplemental declaration, it does seem to be evident that Petitioner is utilizing his mother to hide assets in this case and joining her as a party is necessary to fully conduct discovery. Accordingly, the request for joinder is granted.

Respondent is directed to prepare the Findings and Orders After Hearing (FOAH), however this order is effective immediately upon the court’s adoption of the tentative ruling and is not conditioned on the preparation of the FOAH.

LAW & MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS DEPARTMENT 5 September 3, 2026 8:30 a.m./1:30 p.m.

TENTATIVE RULING #4: RESPONDENT’S OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED. THE COURT HAS NOT READ OR CONSIDERED PETITIONER’S AUGUST 24, 2025 DECLARATION. THE REQUEST FOR JOINDER IS GRANTED.

RESPONDENT IS DIRECTED TO PREPARE THE FINDINGS AND ORDERS AFTER HEARING (FOAH), HOWEVER THIS ORDER IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON THE COURT’S ADOPTION OF THE TENTATIVE RULING AND IS NOT CONDITIONED ON THE PREPARATION OF THE FOAH.

NO HEARING ON THIS MATTER WILL BE HELD UNLESS A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT IS TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY THROUGH THE COURT’S WEBSITE OR BY PHONE CALL TO THE COURT AT (530) 621-6725 BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07; SEE ALSO LEWIS V. SUPERIOR COURT, 19 CAL.4TH 1232, 1247 (1999). NOTICE TO ALL PARTIES OF A REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT AND THE GROUNDS UPON WHICH ARGUMENT IS BEING REQUESTED MUST BE MADE BY PHONE CALL OR IN PERSON BY 4:00 P.M. ON THE DAY THE TENTATIVE RULING IS ISSUED. CAL. RULE CT. 3.1308; LOCAL RULE 8.05.07.