STEINER vs TURNER, et al.

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 10/23/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint in Department 54

The motion also fails to comply with Rule 3.1324, subsection (a), insofar as the motion does not “[s]tate what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located”, nor does it “[s]tate what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.” (Cal. Rul. Ct., Rule 3.1324(a).)

The Court also notes that Plaintiff provided what she captioned as “Attachment I; Proposed First Amended Complaint for Fourth Cause of Action; and Third Cause of Action.” It is unclear if this document is the compelte proposed 1AC or just proposed amendments for the causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty/fraud and IIED. A complete amended and proposed 1AC is required that is clearly redlined to indicate the proposed deletions and additions.

To the extent Defendants argue in opposition that Plaintiff has waived her right to amend by failing to amend by the deadline set forth in the demurrer ruling, this argument is rejected. The cases cited to by Defendants are distinguishable. Neither plaintiff in Reynolds v. Bement (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1075 or Soliz v. Williams (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 577 sought leave to amend in the trial court after the time to amend had passed.

Defendants’ arguments that amendment would be futile are also rejected as the validity of a proposed amendment is generally not considered in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. (California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281.) Such challenges to the pleadings are more properly addressed in a demurrer or a motion to strike rather than in an opposition to a motion to amend. It is axiomatic that 'the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.' (California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co., supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at 281.)

Plaintiff’s argument on reply that Defendants’ opposition was untimely pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rules 8.54 and 8.808 is rejected. Title Eight of the California Rules of Court apply to appeals from the superior courts, petitions in the Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court, and proceedings from transferring cases within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court to the Court of Appeal for review. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 8.4.) Defendants’ opposition was timely filed pursuant to the applicable Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.

Accordingly, the motion for leave to file a 1AC is DENIED without prejudice because the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 10/23/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint in Department 54

motion does not comply with California Rules of Court 3.1324.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted.

The notice of motion lists the incorrect address for Department 54 of the Sacramento County Superior Court and does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. The correct address is 813 6th Street, Sacramento, California 95814. Plaintiff shall notify Defendants immediately of the correct address, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing. If Plaintiff is unable to contact Defendants prior to hearing, Plaintiff is ordered to appear at the hearing.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

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 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 10/23/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint in Department 54

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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.