Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles 

Department 78 

¿ 

 

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

On March 6, 2024, defendants Vincent Mehdizadeh, Matthew Feinstein, Jaime Ortega, Marco Rullo, Pineapple Ventures, Inc., Neu-Ventures, Inc., and Pineapple Consolidated, Inc. (collectively, “Pineapple Defendants”) filed a demurrer against Plaintiff’s complaint originally set to be heard June 10, 2024. 

On May 13, 2024, at the time of defendants Total Accountability Ventures, Inc., Supreme Compliance, Inc., and Maximum Yield, Inc.’s demurrer, Judge Feeney noted that counsel were to meet and confer regarding service of the June 10, 2024 demurrer. (Min. Order, May 13, 2024.) 

On June 10, 2024, the Hon. Jill Feeney provided that “On August 15, 2024, the court will confer with counsel regarding the time for leave to amend as to the demurrer of defendants Total Accountability Ventures, Inc., Supreme Compliance, Inc. and Maximum Yield, Inc. heard on May 13, 2024” and noted that the Pineapple Defendants had a demurrer set for August 15, 2024. 

On August 15, 2024, it was ordered that defendant Pineapple Consolidated serve the demurrer to all parties by August 16, 2024. 

On October 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-service, asserting that Pineapple Defendants violated the Court’s order by failing to serve the demurrer after the August 15, 2024 CMC, or at any time thereafter. Counsel for Pineapple Defendants did not respond to Plaintiff’s counsel’s August 28, 2024 email regarding lack of service. (Roepcke Decl. ¶ 15; Ex. D.) 

 

II. DISCUSSION 

To date, no proof of service of the demurrer has been filed by Pineapple Defendants, nor have Pineapple Defendants filed any brief or declaration disputing Plaintiff’s counsel’s representations pertaining to service.  

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request that Pineapple Defendants’ demurrer be overruled and that Plaintiff be given leave to amend based on the Court’s previous May 13, 2024 order granting in part defendants Total Accountability Ventures, Inc., Supreme Compliance, Inc., and Maximum Yield, Inc.’s demurrer will be granted. The Court declines to impose issue sanctions. 

 

III. CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff is given fifteen (15) days to amend the complaint in relation to the May 13, 2024 Order. 

The demurrer filed by Pineapple Defendants is OVERRULED. Pineapple Defendants are ordered to file an Answer to Plaintiff’s amended complaint within 10 days of its service. 

 

Moving Party is ordered to give notice. 

 

DATED: November 12, 2024 

__________________________ 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court 

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at SMCDEPT78@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting. 

• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue. 

• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.