ARG OPERATIONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ANTONIO, et al.

24CV008474: ARG OPERATIONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ANTONIO, et al. 04/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend 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.

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

24CV008474: ARG OPERATIONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ANTONIO, et al. 04/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend 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 Reporter’s 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. ***

*** The Court finds in its file no proof of service demonstrating moving plaintiff’s service of the Notice of Disclosure issued on 3/11/2026, despite being directed to serve all other parties with the Notice of Disclosure “forthwith.” Plaintiff is directed to serve the Notice of Disclosure on all other parties forthwith and to file proof of service within five (5) court days. ***

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“1AC”) is ruled upon as follows.

Defendant’s counsel failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

Factual Background

This action for partition and equitable accounting was commenced in May 2024. Trial is currently set for 6/16/2026.

Moving Papers. On 3/11/2026, plaintiff filed the present motion to amend on the grounds that it “has meritorious claims against Defendant which are not asserted in the existing complaint, and/or which warrant clarification” and that “[t]he proposed amendments add factual allegations and a cause of action against Defendant.” (Not. of Mot., p.2:1-4; Am. Not. of Mot., p.2:1-4.) According to the moving declaration, plaintiff “[p]rior to March 2, 2026 critically re-evaluated its complaint to determine if any potentially viable causes of action had not been pleaded” and “discovered additional

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008474: ARG OPERATIONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ANTONIO, et al. 04/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 16D

facts and information relevant to include an additional cause of action for ouster in this action, thus making the amendment necessary and proper.” (Noche Decl., ¶¶6-7 (underline added for emphasis).) “Based on this newly discovered information, Plaintiff seeks leave of the Court to file a [1AC] in order to clarify the factual allegations and add an additional cause of action for ouster.” (Id., at ¶8.)

Opposition. Defendant opposes, arguing that this motion should be denied because “[p]laintiff has not provided any evidence upon which the Court can find that good cause exists for this extremely late attempt to amend the Complaint,” with a settlement conference on 5/7/2026 and trial on 6/16/2026. (Opp., p.2:3-7.) Moreover, the sole grounds for the amendment (i.e., to add a cause of action for Ouster) is that “[p]laintiff read the Complaint and found it lacking” but “[t]he excessive delay and failure to explain the excessive delay in bringing this Motion demonstrate that no good cause exists for filing an amended Complaint at this time.” (Id., at p.2:7-10.)

Discussion

Plaintiff has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of CRC Rule 3.1324(a)(2)- (3), requiring the moving papers to identify each allegation which is proposed to be deleted and/or added, along with the page, paragraph, and line number of each of these allegations.

The moving declaration fails to comply with the mandatory provisions of CRC Rule 3.1324(b)(3)-(4), requiring the moving papers to identify when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. While the Noche Declaration indicates in Paragraph 7 that sometime “[p]rior to March 2, 2026, Plaintiff critically re-evaluated its complaint to determine if any potentially viable causes of action had not been pleaded” and “discovered additional facts and information relevant to include an additional cause of action for ouster in this action,” the declaration not only fails to specify when this reevaluation and discovery actually occurred but also fails to specify why the present motion to amend was not brought earlier, as expressly required by CRC Rule 3.1324(b)(3)-(4).

Without this information, this Court is unable to determine how it should exercise its inherent discretion under Code of Civil Procedure §473(b) especially when trial is currently set for 6/16/2026.

Although it is generally true that amendments to pleadings are to be granted with great liberality before trial, there is authority which holds that denial of leave to amend may be justified where the proposed amendment would result in prejudice to the opposing party (see, e.g., Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 338; Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527; Slack v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV008474: ARG OPERATIONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ANTONIO, et al. 04/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 16D

Metropolitan Trust Co. (1935) 9 Cal.App.2d 87) and/or where there was an unwarranted delay in seeking to amend (see, e.g., People ex rel. Department of Public Works v. Jarvis (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 217; Nelson v. Specialty Records, Inc. (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 126). Because (1) the moving declaration fails to specify when plaintiff determined the shortcomings of the existing pleading and also fails to establish that the present motion was promptly brought upon such discovery of the current pleading’s shortcomings and (2) trial is set to commence in just over two months, this Court will exercise its discretion by denying the present motion.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, plaintiff’s motion to amend is DENIED. However, this ruling is without prejudice to plaintiff’s ability to promptly file and serve a code-compliant, properly supported motion to amend. The Court’s indication that this motion is denied without prejudice, however, does not constitute any implied ruling pertaining to the merits of any future motion or issues raised in opposition thereto.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)