ALFI vs TUCKER

26CV000268: ALFI vs TUCKER 06/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend File Second 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 Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 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-reporter-services-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

26CV000268: ALFI vs TUCKER 06/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend File Second Amended Complaint in Department 16D

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.

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D 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. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Self-represented Plaintiff Kayed Alfi’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint is granted.

In Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, he alleges causes of action against Defendant Duane Lee Tucker for conversion and interference with prospective economic advantage. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has prevented him from retrieving personal property located at 7640 Wilbur Way in Sacramento, CA. Plaintiff now seeks leave to file a second amended complaint to clarify his claims and to address issues raised by Defendant.

This case was filed on January 6, 2026, and no trial date is set.

“Trial courts are vested with the discretion to allow amendments in the furtherance of justice That Trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the proceeding, has been established policy in this state resting on the fundamental policy that cases should be decided on the merits.” (Hirsa v Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.) Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit. Thus, the court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings.

See Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920,939; Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal. App.4th 581, 596. A trial court has discretion to deny a motion for leave to amend where “inexcusable delay and probable prejudice” are shown. (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1998) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487-488 [leave to amend made on the eve of trial properly denied in the trial court’s discretion where the new cause of action would have greatly expanded the case after the “trial date was set, the jury [was] about to be impaneled, counsel, the parties, the trial court, and the witnesses [had] blocked the time, and the only way to avoid prejudice to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000268: ALFI vs TUCKER 06/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend File Second Amended Complaint in Department 16D

the opposing party is to continue the trial date to allow further discovery ”].)

At the outset, to the extent that Defendant contends that the motion should be denied because it is procedurally defective, the Court disagrees. To that end, Plaintiff filed a notice of motion on May 6, 2026. Defendant filed an opposition on May 11, 2026, in which Defendant contended that the motion failed to include a memorandum of points and authorities in violation of CRC Rule 3.1113(a).) On May 12, 2026, Plaintiff filed a memorandum of points and authorities. On May 13, 2026, Defendant filed a “supplemental” opposition contending that Plaintiff has improperly filed the memorandum because he only did so after Defendant pointed out his failure to do so.

However, the instant motion was set to be heard on June 25, 2026. Pursuant to CCP § 1005(b), Plaintiff was required to file and serve all moving and supporting papers at least 16 court days before the hearing. (CCP § 1005(b).) Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities filed and served on May 12, 2026 easily met that requirement. Indeed, under CCP § 1005(b), Defendant was not required to file an opposition until nine Court days before the hearing, i.e., the opposition was not due until June 11, 2026.

The fact that Defendant filed its opposition early was Defendant’s choice and is irrelevant to assessing the timeliness of Plaintiff’s filings. The Court will consider Plaintiff’s memorandum of points and authorities.

The only other argument that Defendant raises is that leave to amend would be futile because Plaintiff’s pleading is a sham pleading, the claims belong to a LLC, the exhibits attached to the proposed pleading negate elements of the claims, and Plaintiff is improperly splitting claims. The Court will not consider this challenge to the merits of the proposed pleading on this motion. Generally, the validity of a proposed amendment is generally not considered in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. (California Casualty General Ins.

Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281 [disapproved on other grounds in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 407.]) Such challenges to the pleadings are more properly addressed in a demurrer or a motion to strike rather than in an opposition to a motion to amend. It is axiomatic that “the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (California Casualty Gen.

Ins. Co., supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at 281.) Defendant is free to challenge the proposed first amended complaint by way of demurrer or other appropriate motion.

The motion is granted.

No later than July 9, 2026, Plaintiff shall separately file and serve the proposed second amended complaint in the same form as submitted with the motion. The Court will not deem the proposed amended answer filed and served.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff is ordered to notify Defendant’s counsel immediately of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000268: ALFI vs TUCKER 06/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend File Second Amended Complaint in Department 16D

tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom, or by telephone, in the event Defendant’s counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.