PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al.

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

*** If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov [which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options]. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 47 ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept47 and the ZoomGov ID is: 16173813009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 47 at (916) 874-5487 for assistance. ***

*** The Sacramento Superior Court is transitioning operations from the Gordon D. Schaber and Hall of Justice buildings to the new Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse through a phased move plan beginning on April 13, 2026. Visit the court’s website at www.saccourt.ca.gov for the most current and up to date information regarding the transition. The physical and mailing address of the new downtown courthouse is:

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse 500 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814

Please take notice, effective April 13, 2026, the Presiding Judge Law & Motion calendar will be moved from Department 47 at the Gordon D. Schaber Courthouse to Department 17A at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse, the Honorable Lawrence G. Brown presiding. All hearings currently scheduled or reserved after the effective date shall remain in place and will be heard in Department 17A.

Hon. Lawrence G. Brown Department 17A 916-874-5487 dept17A@saccourt.ca.gov ***

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Joseph Padilla’s (“Padilla”) motion continue trial is DENIED as follows.

The notice of motion provides inaccurate information regarding the Court’s tentative ruling system. The Court’s tentative ruling system for the Law and Motion calendar in the Presiding Judge’s department is governed by Local Rule 1.05(C)-(D). Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and/or self-represented litigants and advise them of the correct local rule, the correct tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing for motions pending in this department.

Procedural and Factual Background

This action arises out of Padilla’s operation of a machine shop business known as Precision Machine & Engine out of premises located at approximately 3100-B Elkhorn Boulevard, North Highlands, California (the “Premises”). Padilla leased the Premises from in pro per Defendant/Cross-Complainant Joseph Sherrill (“Sherrill”), who owns, controls, and/or manages the real property commonly known as 3100 Elkhorn Boulevard, North Highlands, California (the “Property”), including the Premises.

On June 20, 2023, Padilla filed the Complaint, which alleged causes of action for breach of lease, negligence, intentional interference with contractual relations, harassment, and defamation. At the time the Complaint was filed, Padilla was operating his business at the Premises. (See, e.g., Compl. 9:9-26.)

Sherrill filed an Answer and Cross-Complaint on September 25, 2023. The Cross-Complaint alleges causes of action against Padilla for breach of contract (the parties’ lease and purchase agreement), an injunction, and declaratory relief concerning, inter alia, an anticipatory breach of the parties’ lease and purchase agreement by removing machinery, tools, and personal property from the Premises.

On November 13, 2025, Sherrill moved for judgment on the pleadings on the Complaint. On December 10, 2025, the Honorable Julie G. Yap granted in part and denied in part the motion. Judge Yap granted the motion with leave to amend as to Plaintiff’s causes of action for breach of contract (lease and purchase agreement), intentional interference with contractual relations, and harassment. Judge Yap denied the motion as to Plaintiff’s causes of action for negligence and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

defamation.

Padilla filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on December 17, 2025. The FAC alleged causes of action for (1) breach of lease, (2) negligence, (3) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (4) interference with quiet enjoyment/statutory landlord harassment (Civ. Code, § 1940.2), and (5) defamation. The FAC added allegations concerning Padilla’s vacancy of the Premises and Sherrill’s post-vacancy conduct towards Padilla. (See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 20-27.) The FAC also added a prayer for punitive damages. (FAC 7:5-8.)

On January 15, 2026, Sherrill filed a demurrer and motion to strike portions of the FAC. On April 13, 2026, the Honorable Jill H. Talley granted the motion to strike as to the third cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, fourth cause of action for interference with quiet enjoyment/statutory landlord harassment (Civ. Code, § 1940.2), prayer for punitive damages, and factual allegations concerning Plaintiff’s vacancy of the Premises and Defendants’ post-vacancy conduct, finding that they were not alleged in the Complaint or within the scope of leave to amend granted in the order on Padilla’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on the original complaint. (Minute Order, Apr. 13, 2026.)

Judge Talley overruled the demurrer to the FAC on Plaintiff’s first (breach of lease), second (negligence), and fifth (defamation) causes of action. (Ibid.) The April 13, 2026 Minute Order stated that Plaintiff “may move for leave to amend pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324 should he desire to allege the matters that were stricken.” (Id. at p. 10.)

On March 2, 2026, Sherrill filed a verified complaint in Sherrill v. Apodaca, Jr., et al., (Case No. 26CV005044) (“Related Case”). The verified complaint in the Related Case (“Verified Complaint”) alleges causes of action for fraudulent transfer, conspiracy to commit fraudulent transfer, intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, conversion, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief against Padilla and Defendants Gerald Apodaca, Jr.; Unleashed Precision Engines LLC; and Unleashed Power Racing Engines LLC. The Verified Complaint concerns, inter alia, Padilla’s alleged vacation of the Premises on October 31, 2023, removal of equipment from the Premises, and subsequent sale/transfer of the equipment. (Verified Compl. ¶¶ 16-18.)

Defendants filed an answer and cross-complaint in the Related Case on April 3, 2026. An initial Case Management Conference is scheduled in the Related Case for February 3, 2027.

On April 17, 2026, Padilla filed a Notice of Related Cases, Motion to Consolidate, and Motion to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

Continue Trial in this action.

Padilla has not moved to amend the FAC in this action.

Discussion

Padilla moves to continue the current trial date of June 16, 2026, arguing that good cause exists to continue the trial to allow him time to move to amend the FAC and to allow for consolidation of this action with the Related Case.

Sherrill opposes the motion, rejoining that the pleadings are settled as to Padilla’s causes of action for breach of lease, negligence, and defamation, and that the filing of the Related Case does not justify vacating the long-scheduled trial date in this action as the Related Case involves distinct legal theories, timeframes, parties, and remedies.

The Court agrees.

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial a firm.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule (“CRC”) 3.1332(a).) “The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (CRC 3.1332(c).) “Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: . . . [a] party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or . . . [a] significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.” (CRC 3.1332(c)(6), (7).) “In ruling on a motion . . . for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination[,]” which “may include: [t]he proximity of the trial date; . . . [w]hether there was an previous continuance, . . . [t]he prejudice that the parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; . . . [and w]hether the parties have stipulated to a continuance . . . .” (CRC 3.1332(d).)

The Court finds that Padilla has not shown good cause to continue the June 16, 2026 trial date.

Although Padilla argues that the pleadings are not settled, that statement is inaccurate. The FAC is the operative pleading, with Padilla’s causes of action for breach of lease, negligence, and defamation remaining. Moreover, although Judge Talley noted in her ruling on Sherrill’s demurrer and motion to strike portions of the FAC that Padilla could move to amend the FAC to the extent he desired to allege the matters that were stricken, Padilla made no effort to do so when there was sufficient time to file a motion for leave to amend to be heard in advance of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

trial date.

Further, Padilla’s concurrently filed motion to consolidate this action with the Related Case was denied without prejudice for Padilla’s failure to comply with CRC 3.350(1)(a). Even if the Court reached the merits of the motion, it is certainly not clear that it would have granted the motion given the different procedural postures of the cases, the delay consolidation would cause in trying this action, and the dissimilarities between the legal theories and timing of conduct alleged in the two actions.

For the stated reasons, Defendants’ motion to continue is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; CRC 3.1312.)

*** This case has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV003404: PADILLA vs SHERRILL, et al. 05/15/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

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. ***