BATES vs CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al.

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 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.

TENTATIVE RULING

***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 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C 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****

Plaintiff in pro per Thomas M. Bates’ (“Plaintiff”) “motion requesting clarification of interlocutory rulings between second amended complaint and third amended complaint” is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving party is directed to attempt to contact opposing counsel and advise them of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If moving party is unable to make contact prior to hearing, moving party is ordered to appear at the hearing in person or remotely.

Procedural History

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV000245: BATES vs CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Requesting Clarification of Interlocutory Rulings Between Second Amended Complaint and Third Amended Complaint in Department 8C

Plaintiff filed his original complaint in this action on April 24, 2023.

On November 21, 2023, after stipulation of the parties, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (“SAC”), which consisted of seven causes of action against Defendants California Department of Human Resources (“CalHR”) and Nationwide Investment Advisors, LLC (“NIA”) (collectively “Defendants”).

Defendants filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s SAC. On March 29, 2024, the Court issued a tentative ruling on Defendants’ demurrer to the SAC. On April 2, 2024, sustaining the demurrer in its entirety as to all causes of action against CalHR, sustaining the demurrer as to the fourth and seventh causes of action against NIA, and overruling the demurrer as to the first, second, third, fifth and sixth causes of action against NIA. The Court allowed Plaintiff leave to file a third amended complaint no later than May 6, 2024. On April 2, 2024, the Court, the Honorable Judge Christopher E. Krueger presiding, affirmed this tentative ruling.

On May 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint (“TAC”) which asserted the same seven causes of action as the SAC against both Defendants.

Defendants filed a demurrer to the TAC. CalHR demurred to each of the seven causes of action. NIA demurred only to the fourth cause of action for conflict of interest and to the seventh cause of action for age discrimination.

On August 22, 2024 the Court, the Honorable Judge Richard C. Miadich presiding, issued a tentative ruling sustaining CalHR’s demurrer each of Plaintiff’s seven causes of action without leave to amend and sustaining Plaintiff’s fourth and seventh causes of action against NIH without leave to amend. On August 23, 2024, the Court affirmed this tentative ruling. On August 26, 2024, Defendants filed a notice of entry of order re. Defendants’ demurrer to the TAC.

On June 27, 2025, Plaintiff originally filed the instant motion requesting clarification of interlocutory rulings between second amended complaint and third amended complaint.

This motion was initially set for hearing on July 7, 2025. The parties agreed to move the hearing to October 28, 2025. Before the October 28, 2025, hearing, the parties stipulated to extend the trial date and other case deadlines, including the hearing on the Motion, to allow Plaintiff to address health concerns. The parties moved the hearing to November 17, 2025. On November 10, 2025, NIA filed a merits-based opposition to the Motion. The hearing on the Motion was later continued to the currently scheduled date of April 20, 2026. NIA requests that the Court consider its November 10, 2025, opposition as its opposition to the Motion.

Plaintiff’s Moving Papers

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV000245: BATES vs CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Requesting Clarification of Interlocutory Rulings Between Second Amended Complaint and Third Amended Complaint in Department 8C

Plaintiff states:

Plaintiff Thomas Mack Bates contends that tentative order ruled for Defendant Nationwide Investment Advisor for the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) entered on April 3, 2024 Notice of Entry of Order RE: Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint was never carried through and entered as a final ruling after issuance of ruling of the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) on August 8, 2024 Notice of Entry of Order RE: Defendants’ Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint.

(Motion, 1:21-27.)

The Court notes that this statement contains two inaccuracies. First, the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ demurrer to the SAC became a ruling issued by the Court on April 2, 2024 when the Court affirmed it’s March 29, 2024 tentative ruling which stated, “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.)” Moreover, despite the Court’s April 2, 2024 order specifying that formal notice was not required, on April 3, 2024, Defendants filed and served upon Plaintiff a “Notice of Entry of Order Re: Defendants’ Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint.” The Court further notes that the Court’s order on Defendants’ demurrer to the TAC was issued on August 23, 2024, not August 8, 2024.

Additionally, Plaintiff fails to provide proper notice language in his motion. However, since Defendants have received actual notice, have agreed to the continued hearing date, and make no objection to the present motion based on notice, the Court deems notice sufficient.

By way of this motion, Plaintiff seeks “clarification and reconsideration of the TAC ruling via renewed motion to reconsider.” (Motion, 3:1-3.)

Plaintiff’s heading states, “PLAINTIFF REQUEST CLARIFICATION FROM THE COURT BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE ON 6 INTERLUCTORY RULING OF 4th, [5 th], 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Causes of Action As Outlined in TAC.” (Motion, 3:5-6.) The Court notes that the TAC included only seven causes of action.

Plaintiff then states, “Plaintiff is requesting clarification from the court on all causes of actions as identified in the Third Amended Complaint given new facts and evidence produced by initial discovery, specifically as it relates to 4th Cause of Action of Conflict of Interest.” (Motion, 3:8-10.)

Plaintiff then explains that he seeks to amend the fourth amended complaint to:

emphasize the violation of Civil Code Division 3. Obligations [1427- 3273.69] Part 2. Contracts [1549-1701] Title 2.5, Electronic

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV000245: BATES vs CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Requesting Clarification of Interlocutory Rulings Between Second Amended Complaint and Third Amended Complaint in Department 8C

Transactions 24 35 [1633,1-1633.17] is otherwise known as the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act of California. This Act clearly provides the legal basis of the DocuSigned NRF - 06340(09/2019) Risk Tolerance Questionnaire Signed 3/16/2020 as a legal contract with legal authority under this state constitutional statue which NIA had no legal authority to void or override it by its use of Online simulation tool called the My Interactive Retirement Planning Tool (MIRP) other than to promote their self interest over the interest of the Plaintiff.

(Motion, 3:22 – 4:5.)

Plaintiff argues that the new facts that give rise to this request were discovered relating to Plaintiff acquiring access to an SEC filing site where the “ADV 2C” was discovered.

Opposition Papers

In opposition, NIH argues that the motion is procedurally improper because Plaintiff is seeking leave to amend his complaint, but failed to comply with the procedural requirements of a motion for leave to amend. Plaintiff failed to include a “a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a)(1).) Plaintiff also failed to identify by page, paragraph, and line number any additions to and deletions from the prior pleading. (Id., rule 3.1324(a)(2)-(3).)

Plaintiff also failed to include with the motion a separate declaration specifying: “(1) The effect of the amendment; (2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.” (Id., rule 3.1324(b).)

NIH further argues that Plaintiff’s request in this Motion to amend his TAC, on the same basis that he sought leave to amend on the Renewed Motion to Amend, has been rendered moot by the Court’s ruling on the Renewed Motion to Amend.

Analysis

The Court interprets Plaintiff’s instant motion as a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ demurrer to the TAC. (Motion, 3:1-3.)

There are strict requirements for a motion for reconsideration. First, the motion for reconsideration must be heard by the same judge who issued the order sought to be reconsidered (Code Civ. Proc. §1008(a)). Second, the motion for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days of the order denying the motion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(a).) Third, the motion for reconsideration must be supported by “new or different facts, circumstances or law.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 1008(b).) The party seeking reconsideration must base its motion “upon newly

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV000245: BATES vs CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Requesting Clarification of Interlocutory Rulings Between Second Amended Complaint and Third Amended Complaint in Department 8C

discovered facts, circumstances, or law.” (The New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 208.) The moving party must also provide “a satisfactory explanation for the failure to make the showing at or before the time the challenged order was issued.” (Id.) “The information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it.” (Id. at 213.) The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered and some valid reason for not offering it earlier. (Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500.)

Here, the instant motion for reconsideration is being heard by the Honorable Judge Richard C. Miadich, who issued the order on Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s TAC.

The Court concludes that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely and is therefore denied on that basis. The Court issued its ruling on Defendants’ demurrer to the TAC on August 23, 2024. Plaintiff did not file the instant motion until almost one year later, on June 27, 2025. Because Plaintiff failed to file his motion within 10 days as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 1008(a), Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

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.)