Wylie v. NewRez LLC, et al

While the Court wishes the supporting declaration was more detailed, it is sufficient to support the request. (See Wilson Decl., ¶3 [confidential information containing confidential and proprietary business information].) Thus, the Court would find the factors under Rule 2.550 to be satisfied.

*** *** ***

14. South Colton Families First, et al, v. City of Colton, et al, Case No. CIVSB2317228 Demurrer of Real Party in Interest IDI Agua Mansa, LLC 9/1/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

The Court would CONTINUE the matter so that movant may satisfy the meet-and-confer requirements.

Prior to a demurrer, a party is required meet and confer in person or by telephone or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading for purposes of “determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a) [demurrer].)

Here, the supporting declaration does not confirm compliance with the meet-and-confer requirements. (See Shardlow Decl.) Rather, the declaration sets out that a meet-and-confer email with no response. (Shardlow Decl., ¶3 & Exh. A.) It fails to indicate any attempt to contact in person, by telephone, or by video or any frustrated attempt at such compliance. Thus, the Court would continue the matter to allow compliance. The parties will submit a joint declaration at least ten court days before the next hearing detailing the meet-and-confer efforts and whether any issues in the underlying demurrer were resolved.

*** *** ***

16. Wylie v. NewRez LLC, et al, Case No. CIVSB2513110 Plaintiff’s Motion for Additional Time to File Third Amended Complaint 9/1/26, 9:00 a.m., Dept. S-17

Tentative Ruling

The Court would DENY.

Case Summary

In tis case, Plaintiff alleges that she owns real property and that Defendant has foreclosed upon her property without complying properly with foreclosure laws. On May 19, 2025, she filed as a pro per plaintiff. She then filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) and later a Second Amended Complaint (SAC).

Relevant here, the Court sustained Defendant NewRez’s demurrer to the SAC on June 3, 2026. The order granted Plaintiff twenty days of leave to amend. (Minute Order, 6/3/26.)2 Thus, because Plaintiff was present and had oral notice, Plaintiff had until June 23, 2026, to amend. On July 6, 2026, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a Third Amended Complaint (TAC). Prior to that motion being heard,

2 Notably, the tentative decision contemplated thirty days’ leave to amend. The adopted ruling after oral argument, as indicated by the minute order, shortened that time frame to twenty days. (See Tentative, 6/3/26.)

Defendant NewRez came in ex parte on July 23, 2026, seeking to have the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s SAC for failure to amend within the allotted time. The Court continued that application to dismiss to same date and time as this instant motion for additional time to file.

Analysis

Preliminarily, the Court notes that a pro per litigant is held to the same restrictive procedural rules as an attorney. (Bistawros v. Greenberg (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 189, 193.) When an individual decides to represent himself in propria persona, he is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Id., at p. 193, quoting Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638.)

Here, the motion is entitled “Motion for Extension of Time to File Third Amended Complaint.” (Notice, 1:14-16.) The first inquiry is under what authority Plaintiff seeks Court action: Certainly, the motion is not a motion for leave to amend, since leave was already given as part of the ruling on Demurrer on June 23, 2026. Plaintiff’s moving papers (notice, memorandum, declaration) do not cite to any statutes, case law, or other legal authority supporting the relief she seeks. In this regard, Plaintiff’s moving papers do not sufficiently define the motion.

Defendant NewRez’s opposition speculates that the motion might be made under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 on grounds of mistake, inadvertence, excusable negelect. (Opp., 6:23-24 [re CCP § 473(b)].) However, that position is speculation, and – in any event – the motion and supporting documents do not set forth sufficient grounds for the Court to determine the apparent neglect was excusable. (Opp., 7:4-5 [“Here, Plaintiff fails to describe any type of injury which ordinary prudence could not have guarded against.”].) Rather, Plaintiff simply indicates that the failure was “not intentional.” (Points & Authorities, 1:23; also Wyle Decl., ¶¶3-4 [general reference to “illness” without any documentary support; assessment of incapacity; or indicated timeframe].) Thus, even if the Court were inclined to review the motion through the lens of Section 473, there is insufficient support.

When a demurrer to any pleading is sustained and time to amend is given, the time so given runs from the service of notice of the decision or order, unless the notice is waived in open court with the waiver entered in the minutes. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472b.) Because Plaintiff was present at the June 3rd hearing, the 20 days started to run that day and expired on June 23, 2026. However, even if the court considers a 30 days’ leave (as originally stated in the tentative) or adds an extra five calendar days for U.S. mail service to account for notice of the order, Plaintiff still missed the filing deadline because her TAC was filed on August 5, 2026, more than a month later. Plaintiff acknowledges she failed to file the TAC timely. (Wylie Decl., ¶¶2-6.) Thus, the Court may at least conclude that Plaintiff’s attempt to file was untimely under all possible factual scenarios.

The Court cannot speculate upon which legal authority or factual basis, if any, might provide the requested relief. To do so would be to undertake an advocacy role on behalf of a litigant, which is improper. Without the stated grounds for relief, the court cannot ascertain what the standard is for the relief sought and whether Plaintiff met that standard. As a result, the Court is inclined to deny the motion.

*** *** ***

4