Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint
34-2023-00334089-CU-BC-GDS: Latonia Vaughan vs. Karma Apartments 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint 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.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
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 Courts 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
34-2023-00334089-CU-BC-GDS: Latonia Vaughan vs. Karma Apartments 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 16D
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 forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
TENTATIVE RULING:
*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN 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. ***
Moving counsel again failed to comply with CRC Rule 2.111(3) and Rule 3.1110(b)(3)- (4).
Moving counsel failed to correctly identify the Judge assigned to hear this matter: Judge Richard K. Sueyoshi.
Although the notice of motion provides notice of the Courts tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06, the notice does not comply with the specific provisions of Local Rule 1.06(D). Moving counsel directed to review the Local Court Rules, effective 1/1/2026.
Plaintiff Vaughans Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint is DENIED without prejudice, as follows.
First, the Court declines to consider any of the additional papers filed by plaintiff on 6/11/2026 and on 6/12/2026 because they were neither filed nor served at least 16 court days prior to the 6/16/2026 hearing date as required by Code of Civil Procedure §1005(b). (Code Civ. Proc. §12c.) Such defective filing and service deprives the Court of jurisdiction to consider any of these additional papers. (See, e.g., Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509-511.)
Second, the original moving papers filed on 5/4/2026 fail to comply with the mandatory provisions of CRC Rule 3.1324(a)(2) and (3), requiring the moving papers state what
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
34-2023-00334089-CU-BC-GDS: Latonia Vaughan vs. Karma Apartments 06/16/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 16D
allegations are proposed to be deleted and/or added, along with the location of such changes to the allegations in the proposed amended pleading. Notably, the notice of motion and other moving papers indicate the proposed amendment is necessary to correct clerical errors, clarify allegations, and conform the pleading to facts developed through discovery, in furtherance of resolving this matter on the merits but the moving papers do not specify where these various additions and deletions are located in the proposed pleading.
Third, the original moving declaration by attorney Wood filed on 5/4/2026 fails to comply with the mandatory provisions of CRC Rule 3.1324(b)(1)-(4), requiring the supporting declaration to specify the following:
(1) The effect of the amendment; (2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. (Underline added for emphasis.)
The Wood Declaration is silent as to when the facts giving rise to the proposed amendments were discovered and also as to the reasons why leave to amend was not sought earlier in this case. Without all of the information mandated by this Rule of Court, this Court has insufficient information on which to determine how its discretion should be exercised in this instance.
In light of the foregoing, the present motion for leave to amended is DENIED but without prejudice to plaintiffs ability to file and serve another motion to amend in conformity with the requirements of CRC Rule 3.1324.
Moving plaintiff to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)