ROSS, et al. vs MARTINEZ, et al.

24CV017122: ROSS, et al. vs MARTINEZ, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First 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-ca-gov.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-reporterservices-transcripts.

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 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. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING

*** The Court finds in its file no proof of service demonstrating moving plaintiffs’ service

24CV017122: ROSS, et al. vs MARTINEZ, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 16D

of the Notice of Disclosure issued on 8/5/2026, despite being directed to serve all other parties with the Notice of Disclosure “forthwith.” Moving plaintiffs are directed to serve the Notice of Disclosure on all other parties forthwith and to file proof of service within five (5) court days. ***

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file First Amended Complaint is ruled upon as follows.

Moving counsel failed to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3)-(4).

Factual Background

Plaintiffs commenced this action on 8/28/2024, filing a complaint for breach of contract and fraud against defendants Martinez and JVM Landscape Construction Inc. According to the moving papers, plaintiffs now seek to file an amended complaint on the grounds that (1) plaintiffs have discovered new facts regarding fraudulent transfers of assets that occurred after the original complaint was filed; (2) justice requires that plaintiffs be permitted to add additional defendants who participated in the fraudulent scheme; (3) the proposed amendments arise from the same general set of facts as the original complaint; and (4) no prejudice will result to any defendant. No trial date has been set.

Defendant Martinez opposes, arguing that in 2024 and prior to filing this lawsuit, plaintiffs’ counsel sent to several of the individuals now sought to be added as new defendants a letter alleging the existence of a scheme to defraud plaintiffs and threatening litigation. However, despite this knowledge back in 2024, plaintiffs have unreasonably delayed in seeking this amendment without utilizing Doe Amendments and without explanation for the delay. The opposition further asserts that three of the proposed new defendants have “nothing to do with” this case and that plaintiffs cannot, in light of the 2024 letter, establish they were “genuinely ignorant” of the identity of these new defendants.

Finally, defendant insists the proposed amendment will cause severe prejudice and undermine the judicial process, subjecting defendant to additional discovery and costs which will interfere with her defense strategy and trial preparation.

Discussion

At the outset, the Court notes there is a vast body of California law which holds that amendments to pleadings are to be granted with great liberality before trial and sometimes even during trial. (See, e.g., Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 736.) Indeed, case law shows that the granting of leave to amend is found to be erroneous in only a small percentage of the instances the question is presented on appeal. While there is authority indicating that a trial court’s discretionary powers may

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017122: ROSS, et al. vs MARTINEZ, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 16D

justifiably result in denial of leave to amend, the circumstances for such a denial are generally limited to those cases where there was an unwarranted delay in seeking to amend (see, e.g., People ex rel. Department of Public Works v. Jarvis (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 217; Nelson v. Specialty Records, Inc. (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 126) and/or where the amendment would result in prejudice to the opposing party (see, e.g., Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 338; Morgan v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527; Slack v. Metropolitan Trust Co. (1935) 9 Cal.App.2d 87).

In this case, the opposition asserts there was an unreasonable delay in plaintiffs’ attempt to obtain leave to amend. Although Exhibit A to the declaration in opposition sets forth plaintiffs’ pre-litigation theory of fraud and a settlement demand, the moving papers identify as the first ground for this motion to amend is the discovery of “new facts regarding fraudulent transfers of assets that occurred after the original complaint was filed” and notably, the opposition does not argue that plaintiffs previously knew of these allegedly fraudulent transfers and unreasonably delayed in seeking leave to include such claims in the complaint.

As such, the opposition effectively concedes that plaintiffs should be permitted to add several new causes of action including but not necessarily limited to fraudulent transfer, constructive trust and resulting trust, along with the new defendants against whom these causes of action are alleged. For similar reasons, the Court finds that the new cause of action for “successor liability” against Martha Martinez is appropriately granted here insofar as the facts giving rise to this claim were not known to plaintiffs at or before the time this litigation was commenced.

Additionally, even though the opposition argues the amendments now sought by plaintiffs could have been earlier sought, this Court does not find that any potential delay would under the circumstances here justify an outright denial of leave to amend given that this case has not yet been set for trial. Similarly, although defendant insists the proposed amendments will cause severe prejudice and undermine the judicial process, this Court finds that an outright denial of leave to amend would cause substantially greater prejudice insofar as plaintiffs would be precluded from pursuing and potentially proving at trial defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud plaintiffs of substantial sums of money.

While the opposition suggests that defendant will be subjected to the burden and costs of additional discovery relating to the new allegations, this Court does not find that the referenced burden and costs of additional discovery constitute substantive prejudice which mandates denial of leave to amend. Indeed, if it did, leave to amend would rarely be justified as proposed amendments typically include new allegations and/or new causes of action that warrant additional discovery.

The opposition’s remaining contentions that most of the proposed new defendants have “nothing to do with” this case and that plaintiffs cannot establish their “genuine

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV017122: ROSS, et al. vs MARTINEZ, et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 16D

ignorance” of the identity of these new defendants ultimately relate to the merits of the proposed new allegations and causes of action. The Court does not and cannot find here based upon defendant Martinez’s argument that other parties have “nothing to do with” this case. Indeed, a trial court does not ordinarily consider such a challenge to the sufficiency of the proposed pleading in opposition to a motion to amend. Such new parties will have the opportunity to respond to the allegations as directed to them. Lastly, to the extent defendant Martinez might suggest that the addition of such parties would unduly impede the progress of this action, the Court reiterates that no trial date has been set and even if there were a trial, it is premature to address here issues of severance which must instead be raised by noticed motion.

Coupled with the fact that this Court is aware of no authority which compels it to consider here defendant’s challenges the sufficiency of the new allegations and/or causes of action, this Court will exercise its discretion and grant this motion to amend. However, defendant remains free to challenge the adequacy of the amended complaint once it is actually filed and served.

In light of the foregoing, leave to amend is hereby GRANTED.

Plaintiffs shall separately file and serve the proposed First Amended Complaint in the same form which was attached to the moving papers no later than 9/11/2026. Although not required by court rule or statute, plaintiffs are directed to present a copy of this order when the amended complaint is presented for filing.

Moving plaintiffs to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

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