MITCHELL vs SUMMIT FUNDING, INC, et al.

24CV002348: MITCHELL vs SUMMIT FUNDING, INC, et al. 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line for Department 8C at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

24CV002348: MITCHELL vs SUMMIT FUNDING, INC, et al. 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 8C

ID: 16039062174

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 STREET 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 Brian Mitchell’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to file First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 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 counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002348: MITCHELL vs SUMMIT FUNDING, INC, et al. 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 8C

moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or in person.

Plaintiff filed this employment action against Defendants Summit Funding, Inc. (“Summit”) and Todd Scrima (“Scrima”) on February 7, 2024. Plaintiff alleges that he was hired as Summit’s Chief Growth Officer in December of 2022 and began his employment in March of 2023. Plaintiff further alleges that he was terminated in November of 2023 after whistleblowing several illegal acts committed by Summit and Scrima, Summit’s CEO. Plaintiff’s complaint includes a total of 11 causes of action, including retaliation claims, hostile work environment, wrongful termination, and others.

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to substitute CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC (“CCM”) in place of Doe 1 and Doe 26 and to add the following seven causes of action: (1) successor liability – declaratory relief against CCM only; (2) fraudulent/voidable transfer in violation of Civil Code section 3439 et seq. against Defendants and CCM; (3) conspiracy to commit fraudulent transfer against Defendants and CCM; (4) aiding and abetting fraudulent transfer against CCM only; (5) injunctive relief against Defendants and CCM; (6) imposition of constructive trust against Defendants and CCM; and (7) unjust enrichment against Defendants and CCM.

Plaintiff contends that these amendments are necessary because CCM has agreed to purchase “substantially all of Summit’s assets, operations, workforce, and business.” (Mot. MPA, p. 5:2- 3.) Plaintiff asserts that he first learned of CCM’s identity and its alleged relationship to this case when CCM publicly announced the merger agreement on or about March 18, 2026. On April 1, 2026, Plaintiff filed doe amendments in an attempt to substitute CCM in place of Doe 1 and Doe 26, but the amendments were not signed by the Court and thus are ineffective.

On April 23, 2026, Plaintiff filed a prior motion for leave to amend that was denied without prejudice on July 15, 2026 for failure to comply with California Rules of Court rule 3.1324. Plaintiff then filed the present motion on July 17, 2026.

Meanwhile, on June 23, 2026, Plaintiff obtained a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining the merger. The OSC re: preliminary injunction is being heard in conjunction with this motion.

Trial in this matter is currently set for May 10, 2027.

Defendants contend that permitting amendment “will be a fundamental expansion of this litigation in connection with discovery, experts and confidential asset purchase agreement issues.” (Opp. MPA, p. 3:16-17.) Defendants also argue that the proposed claims involve “coercive equitable remedies unrelated to the original employment claims.” (Opp. MPA, p. 3:18.) Defendants thus argue that the proposed amendments will prolong this litigation and that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002348: MITCHELL vs SUMMIT FUNDING, INC, et al. 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 8C

they will be prejudiced as a result. Defendants also assert that the amendments are being sought in bad faith, that the proposed new claims are legally defective, and that plaintiff has an adequate remedy in the form of a money judgment on his employment claims and can revisit seeking creditor remedies in post-judgment proceedings. These latter arguments are not supported by citations to authority or any reference to specific facts or evidence, and thus they are disregarded. (Cameron v. Sacramento County Employees’ Retirement System (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 1266, 1282 [noting that a court “may properly disregard contentions perfunctorily asserted without legal development”].)

The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 473(a)(1).) Judicial policy strongly favors allowing amendments of pleadings so long as it does not prejudice the other parties. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163 [“[A]bsent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings to prevail.”].) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v.

Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.) Absent prejudice, delay alone is not grounds for denial. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 564-565.) Prejudice may exist where the proposed amendments would require additional discovery, a trial continuance, or would otherwise significantly prolong the litigation, or if the plaintiff sought amendment after unwarranted delay. (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 488; P&D Consultants, Inc. v. City of Carlsbad (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1345.)

Here, there is an insufficient showing of prejudice to justify denial of leave to amend. Plaintiff could not have brought his claims earlier since he did not know of the proposed acquisition or CCM’s identity until March of 2026. Plaintiff quickly sought leave to amend within a month after the acquisition was announced. While trial is in just over eight months, Defendants fail to explain how this will be insufficient time for the parties to litigate Plaintiff’s new claims. Additionally, in the event more time is needed to prepare the newly added claims for trial, the parties may seek to bifurcate the newly added claims so they can be tried after the employment claims. Further, the addition of the new claims is reasonably necessary to ensure that Plaintiff can collect on any judgment he obtains on the employment claims.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff shall file and serve the proposed FAC attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Ryan E. Stearns in support of Plaintiff’s motion by no later than August 28, 2026.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002348: MITCHELL vs SUMMIT FUNDING, INC, et al. 08/26/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 8C

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.)