Rolls Royce Paschal Deputy Clerk None Present N/A Court Reporter None Present cb MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL-GEN Initials of Deputy Clerk RRP

We conclude that the Sweetheart parties fail to make substantive arguments supported by legal authority on appeal and did not timely argue before the trial court that the preliminary injunction was unnecessary.

To support that there was an abuse of discretion, the Sweetheart parties cite to Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, a case regarding good faith settlements that does not address easements.

Nor do the Sweetheart parties or the Parks address Code of Civil Procedure chose not to wait to file a notice of appeal until after the trial court ruled on the motion for reconsideration.

But the Sweetheart parties did not seek ex parte relief for an earlier hearing date on the basis that waiting until August 24, 2023 to resolve the motion for reconsideration would prevent them from appealing the order granting the preliminary injunction.

The rule confining our review to matters before the trial court at the time of decision “preserves an orderly system of appellate procedure by preventing litigants from circumventing the normal sequence of litigation.’” (Ibid.)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.

[Lodged Concurrently: Ex Parte Application and Declaration Of Jason H. Tokoro] 672202.1

If the Court findsit has subject matter jurisdictionin this case, the United States of America, the State of California, and the County of Los Angeles shall have 30 days after the Court’s ruling on the County’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss and Strike Allegations in the First Amended Complaint (“Renewed Motion to Dismiss”), within which to file their notices of election regarding intervention in this action pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(4) and Cal.

Gov’t Code § 12652, the First Amended Complaintshall remain partially sealed, until 30 days after the Court’s ruling on a Renewed Motion to Dismiss.

Cormac JéCarney United States District Co 672202.1

[Dkt. 206] ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) This case concerns allegedly false claims submitted to governments in association with Relator Karen Gluck’s ex-husband Thomas Shepos’ wide-ranging bribery and kickback scheme when he was a Los Angeles County employee.

Relator filed this qui tam lawsuit alleging that Shepos “engaged in a decade’s long bribery and kickback scheme to defraud Los Angeles County, the State of California, and the federal government through hundreds of millions of dollars in commercial real estate leases and other significant financial opportunities.” (Compl.

She asserts that in this case, she “seeks to help the County, the State, and the federal government recover the money fraudulently obtained through the developers’ illegal scheme.” (Id. ¶ 4.)

But her Complaint provides only conclusory allegations, and no facts, to support her contention that her ex-husband’s bribery and kickback schemes implicate the federal False Claims Act.

Nothing in the County’s Complaint-in-Intervention—which asserts only California False Claims Act claims—or Relator’s First Amended Complaint assuages the Court’s concern about a basis for federal jurisdiction.

Rolls Royce Paschal Deputy Clerk None Present N/A Court Reporter None Present cb MINUTES FORM 11 CIVIL-GEN Initials of Deputy Clerk RRP

Now before the Court is Mr. Gabaee’s “Motion for Change of Judge” in which he “asks the court to transfer this case to Judge Wu because he contends, this civil lawsuit involves some of the same parties and present overlapping questions of law and fact” such that transfer “will promote judicial efficiency by having a judge, who is already familiar with the case, decide the overlapping issues” and “avoid a risk of inconsistent rulings on the same issues.” (Dkt. 171 at 3–4.)

Mr. Gabaee’s motion is DENIED.1 First, contrary to Mr. Gabaee’s contention, the Central District of California does not consider cases in the present circumstances to be related in a way that warrants transfer.

1 Having read and considered the papers presented by the parties, the Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without a hearing.

In advancing that goal, “[i]t is well established that district courts have inherent power to control their docket.” Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (cleaned up).

But Mr. Gabaee is mistaken that “a transfer will serve the aims of Rule 1 by promoting judicial efficiency and preserving resources.” (Mot.

Cormac J. Carney, Crtrm.

9B and Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero, Crtrm.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.

The Court, having considered the Application to Seal and good cause appearing therefore, hereby GRANTSthe Application to Seal.

United States District Judge 664764.1

Filed 02/14/24 Page1ofi Page ID #:1520

Vv.

Castaic FCG Properties LLC NameofParty to substitute Leo Cunningham [] Plaintiff [x] Defendant [] Other whois

ishereby|{GRANTED [] DENIED The clerk is hereby ordered to terminate Notices of Electronic Filing for the withdrawing attorney(s) in this case.

Dated February 14, 2024

Vv.

David Schaeffer NameofParty to substitute Leo Cunningham [-] Plaintiff [x] Defendant [] Other whois

ishereby|(%GRANTED [DENIED The clerk is hereby ordered to terminate Notices of Electronic Filing for the withdrawing attorney(s) in this case.

Dated February 14, 2024 U.S. District4udge

Intervention, Plaintiffs shall have thirty (30) days to oppose the motion(s) to dismiss; 4.

The Stipulating Parties shall file a report pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) and Local Rule 26-1 no later than forty-five (45) days after the Court unseals the FAC; and

The Stipulating Parties’ deadline to meet and confer pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) shall be extended until twenty-four (24) days after the Court unseals the FAC.

The Stipulation is in no way a waiver of any Party’s right to seek a modification of the briefing schedule, or a further extension of time to respond to the FAC and Complaint-in-Intervention, by agreement or otherwise, for good cause shown.

Under the circumstances presented here, any requests by the Government for an extension of the time during which the complaint remains under seal are disfavored.

9B and Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero, Crtrm.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.

KAREN GLUCK, Plaintiffs,

The Court, having considered the Application to Seal (“Application”), and good cause appearing therefor, hereby GRANTSthe Application.

Cormac ¥ Carney United States District Judg 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ll 6611311