Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and for Clarification or Modification of Prior Order
24CV026788: NGUYEN vs MA, et al. 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and for Clarification or Modification of Prior Order 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
24CV026788: NGUYEN vs MA, et al. 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and for Clarification or Modification of Prior Order 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. ***
The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Courts tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise him/her of Local Rule 1.06 and the Courts tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.
Both moving and opposing counsel failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).
Plaintiff Nguyens Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and for Clarification or Modification of Prior Order was originally set for hearing on 5/12/2026 and on such date, this Court sustained defendants objection to that portion of plaintiff Nguyens motion seeking clarification and/or modification of Judge Yaps 4/9/2025 order but continued the remaining portion relating to leave to amend, permitting defendants to file and serve no later than 5/26/2026 a substantive opposition to such portion of plaintiff Nguyens motion. Defendant did, in fact, file a substantive opposition on 5/26/2026. Although permitted, plaintiff Nguyen did not file by the Courts 6/4/2026 deadline or thereafter any reply to such opposition.
According to defendants opposition filed on 5/26/2026, plaintiffs proposed Amended Complaint is nearly meaningless as it changes next to nothing and as such, defendants concede it will not cause prejudice despite plaintiffs inexcusable delay and lateness. The opposition adds that the proposed amended pleading is subject to
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
24CV026788: NGUYEN vs MA, et al. 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint and for Clarification or Modification of Prior Order in Department 16D
challenge on various grounds but such arguments are reserved for an appropriate motion on a later date. Finally, defendants suggest that the present motion to amend is advanced by plaintiff in order to artificially create grounds for reconsideration [of Judge Yaps prior order compelling arbitration] where no such grounds actually exist and thus, this Court should not entertain any such arguments by plaintiff at the hearing of this motion to amend, nor should the granting of leave to amend be construed as impacting the arbitrators prior rulings.
In light of (1) defendants explicit concession that the proposed amended complaint will not cause prejudice despite plaintiffs inexcusable delay and lateness and (2) the vast body of California law holding that amendments to pleadings are to be granted with great liberality before trial and sometimes even during trial (see, e.g., Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 736), this Court will exercise its discretion in favor of granting leave to amend the complaint notwithstanding the moving papers failure to comply in all respects with the express and mandatory provisions of CRC Rule 3.1324(a) and (b)(1)-(4). Still, moving counsel is advised that future motions to amend must comply with such provisions or leave to amend may otherwise be denied.
Plaintiff shall separately file and serve the proposed First Amended Complaint in the same form which was attached as Exhibit B to the moving papers no later than 7/17/2026. (Although not required by court rule or statute, plaintiff is directed to present a copy of this order when the amended complaint is presented for filing.) Defendants may then respond to the amended complaint according to the Code of Civil Procedure.
Moving party 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.)