THOMAS vs KUPPINGER, et al.

23CV006712: THOMAS vs KUPPINGER, et al. 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Extension of Time to File Objection to Demurrer and to File Exclusion from Complying with Alleged Government Claims Program 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 Department 16D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-3056 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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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

23CV006712: THOMAS vs KUPPINGER, et al. 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Extension of Time to File Objection to Demurrer and to File Exclusion from Complying with Alleged Government Claims Program in Department 16D

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 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.

****NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE.*****

NOTICE:

Given that the subject motion is moot for the reasons stated herein, the Court finds no cause to set this matter for future oral argument to the extent Plaintiff may be incarcerated. Thus, this tentative ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff in pro per Edward Thomas’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for an extension of time to file an objection to demurrer is DENIED as moot.

On December 10, 2025, Defendants P. Kuppinger et al. filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, which is set for hearing on September 10, 2026, i.e., seven weeks from the date of this hearing. On January 20, 2026, Plaintiff filed the instant motion “seeking an extension of 60-days to file an objection” to the demurrer. Plaintiff cites no legal authority in support of his motion.

As of the hearing on this motion, more than 60 days has elapsed since Plaintiff’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV006712: THOMAS vs KUPPINGER, et al. 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Extension of Time to File Objection to Demurrer and to File Exclusion from Complying with Alleged Government Claims Program in Department 16D

request was filed. Yet still, Plaintiff’s potential opposition to Defendant’s demurrer is not due. Based upon the fact that more than 60 days has passed since Plaintiff’s motion was filed and that no opposition is yet due, Plaintiff has already had more than 60 days to prepare his opposition such that the present motion is moot. Additionally, because Defendants’ demurrer is set for hearing on September 10, 2026, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b), which requires an opposition to be filed and served no less than nine (9) court days prior to the hearing, Plaintiff still has substantial time in which to prepare and file his anticipated opposition to the pending the demurrer.

In all, Plaintiff will have had more than eight months between when the demurrer was served and when his opposition is due in which to oppose the demurrer. This is sufficient time for Plaintiff to prepare an opposition. Therefore, the motion is denied as moot for this reason.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is DENIED as moot.

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.)