NEWREZ LLC vs MCELHANEY, et al.

24CV011015: NEWREZ LLC vs MCELHANEY, et al. 01/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Newrez, LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to amend the Complaint is UNOPPOSED and DENIED without prejudice.

Plaintiff filed the Verified Complaint on June 3, 2024, alleging causes of action for declaratory relief, cancellation of instrument, and quiet title.

By this motion, Plaintiff seeks to add cancellation of additional documents recorded by defendant Brandon McElhaney as Trustee of the Sylvan Grove Trust (“Defendant”) and to revise the date upon which the determination is sought as to the quiet title claim due to the dates of the recorded documents. Plaintiff contends the “allegations and overall relief being sought remains the same” and that the “First Amended Complaint just seeks to ensure that Plaintiff’s title is clear from all improper clouds.” (Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support (“MPAs”) at 2:7-8.)

In support, Plaintiff has submitted its counsel’s declaration, which avers that Defendant initially agreed to stipulate to amend the complaint, but failed to sign the stipulation, thereby necessitating this motion. (Declaration of Brandon J. Mika (“Mika Decl.”), ¶ 3, Exs. 1-2.)

The only other statements made by Mr. Mika in his declaration include the following:

“4. The First Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

5. Defendants will not be prejudiced by the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is still seeking to quiet title and remove all improper clouds. Trial has not yet been set and Defendants have not propounded discovery.

6. I determined that it was necessary to amend the complaint after discovering an additional document clouding title to the Property. I also thought it was necessary to change the date of determination for quiet title.”

(Mika Decl., ¶¶ 4-6.)

Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective. A motion to amend must include a supporting declaration consistent with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b). In particular, the separate declaration must specify the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. The supporting declaration submitted by Mr. Mika does not specify any of the foregoing. The requirements in California Rules of Court 3.1324 are mandatory, and the Court will not

24CV011015: NEWREZ LLC vs MCELHANEY, et al. 01/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint in Department 54

grant a motion for leave to amend unless the moving party has complied with all mandatory requirements.

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).) In addition, the attached First Amended Complaint is not redlined to indicate the proposed additions and deletions.

Accordingly, the motion for leave to amend the Complaint is DENIED without prejudice because the motion does not comply with California Rules of Court 3.1324.

Plaintiff has indicated the incorrect address for Department 54 of the Sacramento County Superior Court in its notice of motion. The correct address is 813 6th Street, Sacramento, California 95814. Plaintiff shall notify Defendant immediately.

In addition, the notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff is ordered to notify Defendant immediately of the tentative ruling system and the manner to request a 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 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011015: NEWREZ LLC vs MCELHANEY, et al. 01/29/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint in Department 54

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 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.