DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24PR002924·sacramento·Probate·Trust Administration
Hearing 11 months agoGRANTED

In the Matter of the Mohammad Zamiri Living Trust

Motion for Order Allowing Leave to Amend Petitions for Instructions

Hearing date
Oct 15, 2025
Department
129
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerFarah Zamiri
RespondentAzar Zamiri

Attorneys

Marlene Sanbornfor Petitioner
Dan Nearfor Respondent

Ruling

24PR002924: MOHAMMAD ZAMIRI LIVING TRUST 10/15/2025 General Probate MOTION in Department 129

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER ALLOWING LEAVE TO AMEND PETITIONS FOR INSTRUCTIONS

MOTION FILED: 4/17/25

RE: In re Mohammad Zamiri Living Trust dated July 19, 2022

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Farah Zamiri Atty: Marlene Sanborn, (916) 782-8188

RESPONDING PARTY: Azar Zamiri Atty: Dan Near, (916) 987-0808

NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative ruling may be downloaded off the court’s website. If the party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the Probate Department at (916) 875-2529 between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing and receive the tentative ruling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.

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 129 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept129 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 3352 9231. 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 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-

24PR002924: MOHAMMAD ZAMIRI LIVING TRUST 10/15/2025 General Probate MOTION in Department 129

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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING Background Movant Farah Zamiri’s (“Movant”) motion for leave to file an Amended Petition is GRANTED.

Movant moves for leave amend to update the real party in interest. Movant Farah Zzamiri resigned as trustee of the subject trust on March 18, 2025. (Declaration of Marlene Sanborn, Exhibit B.) Omid Torabian is the named successor trustee of the Trust and has accepted the role of successor trustee. (Id.)

The motion was set for hearing on 8/20/2025. Oppositions were due nine days before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005(b).) The Court construes the “Response and Objection of Azar Zamiri to Motion for Leave to Amend Petitions” (filed 8/18/25 and amended on 9/8/25) as an opposition, and, in its discretion, considered the late-filed opposition.

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(a)(l), a court may allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding “in the furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper.”

Respondent opposes this motion solely on the grounds that he objects to the appointment of Successor Trustee. Respondent “objects to the requested orders to appoint Omid Torabian as successor trustee” and “requests that Omid Torabian be removed as the successor trustee and replaced by a court appointed alternative successor trustee.” (Amended Response, pg. 2, lns. 13- 15.) Respondent misconstrues this motion as “requested orders to appoint” a successor trustee. The Court has no record of a request to order the appointment of a successor trustee. According to Movant, Omid Torabian is the named successor trustee of the Trust and has already accepted appointement; this motion merely seeks to amend the pleadings to correctly identify the real party in interest. Further, Respondent fails to demonstrate the legal basis entitling him to removal

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24PR002924: MOHAMMAD ZAMIRI LIVING TRUST 10/15/2025 General Probate MOTION in Department 129

of a successor trustee as part of an opposition to a motion for leave to amend. Respondent’s opposition is rejected.

The motion is GRANTED. Movant may file her amended petitions no later than November 5, 2025.

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

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share