Perechesov, et al. vs Tovarian

26CV009550: PERECHESOV, et al. vs TOVARIAN 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 16D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you 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 and advise opposing counsel. 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.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

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

26CV009550: PERECHESOV, et al. vs TOVARIAN 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 16D

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 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 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D 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. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Self-represented Plaintiffs Denis Perechesov’s and Anastasia Chistanova’s motion for preliminary injunction is continued on the Court’s motion to July 9, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in this department.

The hearing is being continued so that it may be heard after Defendant Aleksey Tovarian’s pending motion to compel this case to arbitration is heard on June 25, 2026. A continuance is proper under these circumstances given that in the event the matter is ordered to arbitration, the instant dispute would be heard by the arbitrator.

The Court is aware that Plaintiffs refer to CCP § 1281.8 in the reply brief which permits a party to an arbitration agreement to apply for provisional remedies in connection with an arbitrable controversy. However, that section only permits a party to an arbitration agreement to seek provisional remedies in connection with an arbitrable controversy “but only upon the ground that the award to which the applicant may be entitled may be rendered ineffectual without provisional relief.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1281.8 [emphasis added].)

First, Plaintiffs did not address the arbitration provision in their attorney-client agreement with Defendant in their moving papers. Given the early stage of this case and the fact that Defendant had not yet answered, it was foreseeable that the arbitration provision would need to be addressed in the context of alternatively seeking any provisional relief from the Court. The Court declines to consider any argument regarding the arbitration provision raised by Plaintiffs for the first time in reply because the general rule in California is that new arguments and evidence presented for the first time on reply are not permitted as the opposing party had no opportunity to address these new matters in the opposition papers. (See, e.g., Carbajal v.

CWPSC, Inc. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 227, 241; Jay v. Mahaffey (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1522, 1537; Tyler v. Children's Home Society (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 511, 526, n.8.) Second, Plaintiffs also

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV009550: PERECHESOV, et al. vs TOVARIAN 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 16D

did not address CCP § 1281.8 in their moving papers, notwithstanding the presence of the arbitration provision. Even to the extent Plaintiff assumed (incorrectly) that Defendant would not seek arbitration until Defendant filed on May 14, 2026 its motion to compel arbitration (i.e., after the filing of Plaintiffs’ moving papers), Plaintiffs still have failed to demonstrate in their reply papers that provisional relief is required before the continued hearing of July 9, 2026, to avoid rendering ineffectual any award to which Plaintiffs may be entitled to.

Therefore, the Court will not address Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction prior to ruling on Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. If Defendant’s motion is denied, the Court will address the present motion in due course.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.