Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint
24CV013308: MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al. 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint in Department 8D
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 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. 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
24CV013308: MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al. 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint in Department 8D
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.
***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D 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***
Defendant Universal Protection Service, LPs (Defendant) motion to strike portions of plaintiff Barbara McIntyres (Plaintiff) Second Amended Complaint (SAC) is GRANTED as set forth herein.
As relevant here, on June 11, 2025, this Court sustained Defendants demurrer to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint as to first cause of action for whistleblower retaliation under Labor Code section 1102.5 on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts that Defendant was her employer. Plaintiff filed her SAC on June 25, 2025, wherein she asserts the first cause of action solely against the City of Sacramento (the City), but maintains allegations of Defendants violation of section 1102.5 within the SAC, including a request for damages and penalties.
Defendant moves to strike language directed against it contained within the SACs first cause of action against the City, as well as language in the SACs prayer for relief requesting statutory penalties from Defendant under Civil Code section 3294. Plaintiff has filed a Response and Non-opposition to the present motion in which she indicates that she does not oppose striking the language as requested by Defendant, stating that the inclusion of such language in the SAC was a clerical error. Specifically, Plaintiff represents that she does not oppose [Defendants] request to strike the specific phrases identified in their motion from the SAC. (Response and Non-opposition at p. 1:23-25.)
Thus, to the extent Defendant moves to strike Plaintiffs allegations of violations of Labor Code section 1102.5 against it and Plaintiffs request for penalties under Civil Code section 3294 from Defendant in the prayer for relief, the motion is GRANTED.
Plaintiff requests leave to amend the SAC and to file an attached Third Amended Complaint (TAC). In reply, Defendant opposes granting leave to file the proposed TAC, arguing that Plaintiffs proposed TAC seeks to add new parties and new causes of action.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
24CV013308: MCINTYRE vs CITY OF SACRAMENTO, A CALIFORNIA CHARTER CITY, et al. 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Second Amended Complaint in Department 8D
Where a challenge to a pleading is sustained or granted with leave to amend, the leave must be construed to the pleader to amend the causes of action to which the pleading challenge was granted/sustained. (See Zak v. Diesel (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 431, 456; Harris v. Wachovia Mortgage, FSB (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1018, 1023.) Rather, [t]o raise claims unrelated to those pleased in an earlier complaint (i.e., a wholly distinct and different legal obligation of the defendant), a plaintiff may need to file a motion for leave to amend the earlier complaint. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2025) ¶ 7:148.1.) Absent prior leave of court, an amended complaint raising totally new and different causes of action may be subject to a motion to strike. (Ibid.)
The Court grants leave to amend, but only within the scope of the arguments raised in the pending motion to strike allegations regarding violation of section 1102.5 and related claims for damages. (The Court notes that it also grants leave to amend in the Courts concurrent ruling on Defendants demurrer as to Plaintiffs second, third, fourth, and fifth causes of action under the Fair Employment and Housing Act.)
If Plaintiff wishes to amend her SAC beyond the scope of the leave to amend granted in these orders, nothing in this order prevents Plaintiff from seeking such relief through a properly noticed motion.
Plaintiff may file and serve an amended complaint no later than June 10, 2026. This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.