South Colton Families First, et al, v. City of Colton, 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.)

3