JACKSON, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS THE SUCCESSORS-IN-INTEREST TO ARLENE EDNA GOODWIN, et al. vs ARDEN GLEN HEALTHCARE, LLC

25CV016369: JACKSON, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS THE SUCCESSORS- IN- INTEREST TO ARLENE EDNA GOODWIN, et al. vs ARDEN GLEN HEALTHCARE, LLC 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 8D

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 8D Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-7719 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 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. 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-servicestranscripts. 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.

25CV016369: JACKSON, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS THE SUCCESSORS- IN- INTEREST TO ARLENE EDNA GOODWIN, et al. vs ARDEN GLEN HEALTHCARE, LLC 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 8D

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 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING:

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise of Local Rule 1.06, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, moving counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely, in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Background

The motion of Plaintiffs Valerie Jackson and Kymberly Jackson Dumas, individually and as successors-in-interest to Arlene Edna Goodwin, (“Plaintiffs”) for leave to file a first amended complaint (“FAC”) is GRANTED.

This action was initially filed on July 8, 2025, and arises from the death of Plaintiffs’

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016369: JACKSON, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS THE SUCCESSORS- IN- INTEREST TO ARLENE EDNA GOODWIN, et al. vs ARDEN GLEN HEALTHCARE, LLC 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 8D

mother (“Decedent”). (Compl.) In the operative complaint, Plaintiffs allege that, on April 20, 2024, the Decedent fell from her wheelchair and subsequently died as a result of Defendant Arden Glen Healthcare, LLC d/b/a Arden Park Post Acute’s (“Defendant”) negligence and wrongful misconduct. (Compl. ¶¶ 14-15.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to exercise the degree of care and skill common to medical practitioners and healthcare providers in the community and negligently, carelessly, recklessly or intentionally treated, cared for, diagnosed, and failed to protect Decedent. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14.) Plaintiffs assert causes of action for medical negligence/wrongful death and survival actions in their individual and successor capacities.

A trial date has not yet been set in this matter.

Plaintiffs now seek leave to file a proposed FAC, which would (a) add causes of action for elder abuse and neglect and violation of residents’ bill of rights; (b) add additional plaintiffs and defendants; and (c) expand the facts alleged to include allegations of staff assault, improper hygiene, invasions of privacy, sexual assault, and systemic failures and neglect.

Defendant opposes.

Legal Standard

“The court may, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) A motion to amend a pleading must include a copy of the proposed amended pleading and state what allegations will be deleted or added by page, paragraph, and line number. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, subd. (a).) Further, the party must submit a separate declaration specifying “(1) The effect of the amendment; (2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) The reasons why the request was not made earlier.” (Id., subd. (b).)

Courts “apply a policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the complaint at any stage of the proceedings, up to and including trial.” (Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487.) This policy ensures that cases are tried and decided on the merits. (Higgins v. Del Faro (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 558, 565.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016369: JACKSON, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS THE SUCCESSORS- IN- INTEREST TO ARLENE EDNA GOODWIN, et al. vs ARDEN GLEN HEALTHCARE, LLC 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 8D

Generally, if delay in seeking the amendment has not misled or prejudiced the other side, the liberal policy of allowing amendments prevails. (Higgins v. Del Faro, supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at pp. 564-565; see Bd. of Trustees v. Super. Ct. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163 [“Thus, absent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings will prevail.”]; see also Kittredge Sports Co. v. Super. Ct. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048 [citing Higgins v.

Del Faro, supra, 123 Cal.App.3d at pp. 564-565].) Prejudice is more than that a defendant must merely defend another charge or face additional evidence. (Landis v. Super. Ct. (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 548, 557; Hirsa v. Super. Ct. (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Prejudice can be found in an unexplained delay that causes trial continuance or where amendment would be futile as a matter of law. (Magpali, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at pp. 486–488; Cal. Casualty Gen. Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280–281, disapproved on other grounds by Kransco v.

American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 405.)

Only very rarely will “a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his or her pleading so that he or she may properly present his or her case.” (Bd. of Trustees, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 1163.)

Discussion

Compliance with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b)

Defendant first argues that Plaintiff failed to comply with Rule 3.1324 because Plaintiffs’ declaration fails to address why the request for amendment was not made earlier. Specifically, Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ counsel was aware of all the information several months before filing this motion. (Opp. at p. 3:26–4:17.)

California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b) provides:

(b) Supporting declaration A separate declaration must accompany the motion and must specify: (1) The effect of the amendment; (2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016369: JACKSON, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS THE SUCCESSORS- IN- INTEREST TO ARLENE EDNA GOODWIN, et al. vs ARDEN GLEN HEALTHCARE, LLC 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 8D

Plaintiffs’ counsel declares the effect of the amendment (Habbas Decl. ¶ 8), why the amendment is necessary and proper (Id. ¶¶ 9, 10), when the facts giving rise to amendment were discovered and the reasons why the request was not made earlier (Id. ¶¶ 3-7). The Court finds that Plaintiff has complied with Rule 3.1324.

Prejudice

Defendant next argues that it would be prejudiced by the amendment because it will have to dramatically reshape its litigation and discovery strategy to meet the new allegations and causes of action and because Plaintiffs have not adequately explained their delay. (Opp. at pp. 4:13–5:15.)

Having to face additional factual allegations or causes of action does not show undue prejudice. (Landis v. Super. Ct. (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 548, 557; Hirsa v. Super. Ct. (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490.) Although unexplained delay may be sufficient to deny leave to amend, caselaw illustrates that courts deny leave only when an unexcused delay threatens undue prejudice. (Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 613 [amendment offered at status conference to defeat motion to dismiss].)

First, the Court does not find an unexcused or unreasonable delay. As set forth above, Plaintiff filed its complaint in July 2025 and moved to amend in April 2026 based on additional information Plaintiff’s counsel obtained in the interim. Plaintiff provides a reasonable explanation, and the delay is not excessive. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ counsel attests that subsequent to the filing of the initial Complaint and prior to filing a First Amended Complaint that had been stipulated to by the Parties on or about September 3, 2025, Plaintiffs’ counsel “completed the regulatory investigation” of Arden Park Post Acute and “determined that the proposed FAC should be expanded” to include the new causes of action “supported by the newly obtained evidence.” (Habbas Decl. ¶¶ 4-5.)

While Defendant appears to take issue with the delay in seeking a stipulation to file the proposed amended complaint in March 2026 and/or in filing the motion for leave to amend on April 2, 2026, the Court does not find this to be a sufficient basis for denial in light of all the facts before the Court in this case, including the filing date of the initial Complaint as well as the lack of a trial date.

Second, the Court does not find undue prejudice to Defendant. Even though Plaintiffs’ factual allegations are substantially expanded in the FAC, the core allegation of legally

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016369: JACKSON, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS THE SUCCESSORS- IN- INTEREST TO ARLENE EDNA GOODWIN, et al. vs ARDEN GLEN HEALTHCARE, LLC 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 8D

insufficient care remains. Further, Plaintiffs declare that depositions of parties and key witnesses have not been completed. (Habbas Decl. ¶ 10.) Defendant has not challenged the operative complaint, and neither party has made any dispositive motion. No trial date is set. The parties have not yet had an initial case management conference. These circumstances are far different from those when undue prejudice from delay has been found. (See, e.g., Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 746 [motion to amend three days before summary judgment motion]; Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc., supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at pp. 486–487 [motion to add cause of action “on the eve of trial”].)

To the extent Defendant may argue that the proposed cause of action for elder abuse is barred by the statute of limitations and amendment is therefore futile (Opp. at p. 4:4–9), this goes to the sufficiency and/or merit of Plaintiffs’ allegations, which is not generally a ground for denial of a motion for leave to amend. While the Court may deny leave to amend where the facts are undisputed and it is clear that no cause of action can be stated as a matter of law, the Court does not find that the proposed amendments present such a circumstance here based on the proposed pleadings and arguments presented by the Parties at this time. (See Komorsky v.

Farmers Ins. Exch. (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 960, 971.) Rather, when the adequacy of the pleadings is unclear, “the proper course of action [is] to permit amendment, after which the defendants [may test] the complaint’s sufficiency via demurrer or motion for judgment on the pleadings.” (Armenta ex rel. City of Burbank v. Mueller Co. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 636, 643.) The ruling on this motion is, of course, without prejudice to Defendant’s ability to file any applicable or appropriate motions to test the sufficiency of the pleadings.

The liberal policy of granting leave to amend prevails based on the circumstances and arguments presented. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is granted.

Disposition

Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the proposed first amended complaint is GRANTED.

Plaintiffs shall file and serve the proposed FAC no later than September 16, 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. Defendant may file and serve a response within 30 days of service of the FAC, 35 days if served by mail.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016369: JACKSON, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS THE SUCCESSORS- IN- INTEREST TO ARLENE EDNA GOODWIN, et al. vs ARDEN GLEN HEALTHCARE, LLC 09/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 8D

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)