Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint 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-cagov.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-servicestranscripts. 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 reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint in Department 16D

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.

*** EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN SACRAMENTO, CA 95814. ALL HEARINGS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh’s motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (“TAC”) is denied.

Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) unopposed request for judicial notice is granted for the limited purposes permitted for judicial notice. (Evid. Code §§ 451(a), 452(b)-(d); Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not to the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.)

In this employment action, Plaintiff alleges numerous causes of action, including FEHA based causes of action for religious and national origin discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant CDCR as a family physician at CSP-Sacramento (CSP-SAC). Plaintiff alleges he raised concerns regarding safety and that as a result CDCR assigned him to more dangerous areas of the prison. Plaintiff was later diagnosed with bladder cancer and had been approved for leave. Prior to the leave, he reported to the Office of Inspector General that his supervisors were falsifying patient care data. Days later, CDCR rescinded his leave and later terminated Plaintiff’s employment.

Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a TAC which, according to the moving papers, makes substantial revisions to the currently operative complaint including wholesale revisions to multiple causes of action as well as both the addition and deletion of several other causes of action. (See, e.g., Not. of Mot., pp.2-5; Thrasher Decl., Ex. B.) Plaintiff’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint in Department 16D

counsel declares that “the entire complaint was redone.” (Thrasher Decl. ¶ 66.) While the currently operative Second Amended Complaint consists of 17 pages and 82 paragraphs, the proposed TAC spans 97 pages and includes over 600 paragraphs.

On July 7, 2026, this Court denied Plaintiff’s previous motion for leave to file a TAC given CDCR’s pending motion for summary adjudication directed to the second amended complaint. The denial was “without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to seek by noticed motion leave to amend the complaint following the disposition of the pending motion for summary adjudication.”

On July 16, 2026, this Court granted CDCR’s motion for summary adjudication as to the eighth and fifteenth causes of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and breach of contract. The proposed TAC does not include these causes of action.

The instant action was filed on December 19, 2019 and trial is set for November 2, 2026. The trial has been continued twice by stipulation of the parties and once after Plaintiff’s motion to continue trial. (Hsieh Decl. ¶¶ 9, 10.) The five-year deadline under CCP § 583.310 has been extended twice based on the parties’ stipulation and is set to expire on December 31, 2026. (Id.)

“Trial courts are vested with the discretion to allow amendments in the furtherance of justice That Trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the proceeding, has been established policy in this state resting on the fundamental policy that cases should be decided on the merits.” (Hirsa v Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.) Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit. Thus, the court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings.

See Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920,939; Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal. App.4th 581, 596. A trial court has discretion to deny a motion for leave to amend where “inexcusable delay and probable prejudice” are shown. (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1998) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487-488 [leave to amend made on the eve of trial properly denied in the trial court’s discretion where the new cause of action would have greatly expanded the case after the “trial date was set, the jury [was] about to be impaneled, counsel, the parties, the trial court, and the witnesses [had] blocked the time, and the only way to avoid prejudice to the opposing party is to continue the trial date to allow further discovery ”].)

CDCR opposes the motion on the basis that Plaintiff failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1324. CDCR also argues that Plaintiff has unreasonably delayed seeking amendment and the wholesale changes to the complaint will cause substantial prejudice. CDCR finally contends that several of the proposed new causes of action are barred by either

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint in Department 16D

the applicable statutes of limitation or the Government Claims Act or are otherwise inapplicable to public entities.

To the extent that Defendant contends that Plaintiff has inexcusably delayed, the Court agrees. Plaintiff’s counsel concedes that “[t]he majority of facts alleged in this amended complaint were known, but without detail, to Plaintiff before the filing of both his original complaints and previously amended complaints.” (Thrasher Decl. ¶ 61.) However, Plaintiff’s counsel then states that “[t]he full details of these facts were not known to Plaintiff until the end of February 2026 when Defendants did their renewed document production of over eight thousand (8,000) documents.” (Id.)

Yet, the proposed TAC seeks to add eight new causes of action and Plaintiff’s counsel provides no specific explanation how the February 2026 document production revealed the need for adding these new causes of action and allegations to complaint at this late stage of the proceeding, much less the need for entirely rewriting the complaint from a document consisting of 17 pages and 82 paragraphs to one spanning 97 pages and over 600 paragraphs. The proposed amendments are immense in comparison to the presently operative complaint.

Nor has Plaintiff’s counsel demonstrated why the referenced document production – which Plaintiff vaguely points to as bringing to light the facts now requiring amendment – was not pursued at any earlier date in over six-and-a-half years of this litigation. Notably, this case was filed on December 19, 2019, and trial is now set for November 2, 2026. Plaintiff has amended the complaint on two prior occasions and trial has been continued on three occasions. Further, the parties have been engaged in discovery since May 2020. (Hsieh Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10, 14.)

Plaintiff has propounded 246 requests for production, five sets of form interrogatories, 96 requests for admission, and 56 special interrogatories. (Id. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff propounded another set of requests for production, interrogatories and requests for admission on June 16, 2026. (Id.) Plaintiff has also deposed twelve witnesses and has noticed thirteen more depositions. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 16.) Notably, the claims Plaintiff now seeks to add relate entirely to his own employment and are premised on facts which he concededly has known even before the complaint was filed in 2019.

Plaintiff’s counsel also seeks to attribute the delay to Plaintiff’s prior counsel by stating that he “is unsure why Plaintiff’s previous counsel did not make this amendment earlier, but based on the record, it is likely due in part to Ms. Savage Day’s discovery delays and resultant motions.” (Thrasher Decl. ¶ 62.) But Plaintiff’s current counsel substituted in as counsel of record in October 2023, almost three years ago. In any event, “[t]he mere substitution of retained counsel cannot excuse the delay; for, otherwise, counsel would be inevitably substituted whenever a party desired to belatedly amend its complaint.” (Del Mar Beach Club Owners Assn. v.

Imperial Contracting Co. (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 898, 915.) Plaintiff has failed to explain why, now, less than three months before trial, he seeks to amend his complaint in a manner which entirely rewrites the operative pleading despite having filed this

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 08/20/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint in Department 16D

action in 2019. “There is a platoon of authority to the effect that a long unexcused delay is sufficient to uphold a trial judge's decision to deny the opportunity to amend pleadings ” (Green v. Rancho Santa Margarita Mortgage Co. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 686, 692.) The motion is denied on this basis alone.

Further, CDCR would be substantially prejudiced if the proposed amendment were permitted at this late date. Again, the parties have litigated this case extensively and have been engaged in discovery since May 2020. Plaintiff has twice amended the complaint, trial has been continued on three occasions and the parties have twice agreed to extend CCP § 583.310’s five-year statute which is set to expire on December 31, 2026. Trial is also set for November 2, 2026. If the proposed TAC were permitted to be filed, CDCR would be forced to defend against brand new causes of action and new factual allegations dating back to 2014.

The proposed TAC would certainly entail new discovery and given the proximity of the trial, CDCR would most likely not have sufficient time to challenge the TAC by way of a motion for summary judgment. “Prejudice can include the time and expense associated with opposing a legal theory that a plaintiff belatedly seeks to change.” (Payton v. CSI Elec. Contractors, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal. App. 5th 832, 849.) While Plaintiff appears to suggest that CDCR could agree to once again extend the five-year statute, CDCR is not require to do so simply because Plaintiff desires to substantially expand the allegations of its complaint.

CDCR should not, as a result of Plaintiff’s unexcused delay, be forced to choose between agreeing to yet again extend the five-year statute in order to create time to properly defend against what is a belated amendment, or proceeding to trial on November 2, 2026 without being able to adequately investigate or challenge a new and substantially expanded pleading. “A long unexcused delay may be the basis for denying permission to amend pleadings, especially where the proposed amendment interjects a new issue, which may require further investigation or discovery procedures.” (Nelson v.

Specialty Recs., Inc. (1970) 11 Cal. App. 3d 126, 139 [citations omitted].)

The motion is denied.

Given the above, the Court need not address CDCR’s other arguments raised in opposition.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.