D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al.

25CV003152: D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Please take notice, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil- Sakauye Courthouse. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff D7 Roofing Services, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“2AC”) is GRANTED.

Plaintiff filed the original Complaint against defendants Tidal Wave Properties, LLC; Jacobo Small; and 4150FlorinPerkins LLC (“4150”) (collectively, “Defendants”) on February 7, 2025. Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (“1AC”) on May 22, 2025.

On or about June 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amendment to Complaint naming DOE 1 as defendant Home with K & K, LLC a Georgia Domestic Limited Liability Company (“Home With K & K”).

Home With K & K’s demurrer to the 1AC was sustained with leave to amend on May 21, 2026. 4150’s demurrer to the 1AC was sustained with leave to amend on May 26, 2026. Both rulings stated that Plaintiff was given until June 9, 2026 to file a Second Amended Complaint addressing the deficiencies raised in the demurrer.

By this motion, Plaintiff seeks leave to include additional factual allegations against Home With K & K, 4150 and proposed Doe Defendant Jason Kristal; add an alter ego theory and fraud allegations against 4150; add factual allegations regarding the knowledge that all Defendants had regarding the mechanic’s lien on the subject property; add a cause of action for Corporations Code section 177077.07 (Member Liability of Dissolved Limited Liability Company); add a cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 3439.04; and add a cause of action for fraud against 4150 and Doe Defendant Jason Kristal.

Plaintiff has attached a redlined comparison of the 1AC and the proposed 2AC to the supporting declaration submitted by counsel.

25CV003152: D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in Department 16C

Plaintiff asserts the proposed amendments ensure that the operative pleading fully reflects all issues material to the disposition of this action, clarifies ambiguities contained in the 1AC, and more fully sets forth the alleged harm suffered by Plaintiff. The proposed amendments were recently discovered on November 20, 2025, when 4150 and Home With K & K served their written discovery responses on Plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that the responses identified the dates on which the property was sold to Defendants, the name of the title company involved, and the date on which Jason Kristal dissolved 4150.

Shortly after receiving these discovery responses, Plaintiff issued a subpoena to WFG Title on December 4, 2025, and received the subpoenaed records on or about February 5, 2026. Review of those records revealed additional information, including a title report indicating that Defendants had notice of the mechanic’s lien prior to their purchase. (Declaration of Mustafa R. Karim (“Karim Decl.”), ¶ 13.)

In addition, on February 13, 2026, Jason Kristal filed a Complaint in Sacramento County (Case No. 26CV003457) against Plaintiff Jeffrey L. Williamson, the Chief Operating Officer of Plaintiff. The Complaint disclosed additional facts supporting the amendments, including that Defendants were aware of the work performed on the property, which remains unpaid, and that they purchased the property subject to the mechanic’s lien.

Plaintiffs argue no prejudice will be suffered if leave to file a 2AC is granted because minimal discovery has been conducted to date, no depositions have been noticed or taken, and no trial date has been set.

Home With K & K and 4150 have opposed.

Home with K & K argues leave to amend should be denied because the causes of action asserted against it (the first, second, seventh, ninth, and tenth causes of action) fail to state claims upon which relief can be granted. For example, Home With K & K argues the first cause of action for foreclosure of mechanics lien fails to state a claim because the lien is not valid. Home With K & K asserts the second cause of action for quantum meruit fails for the same reasons the Court’s tentative ruling sustained 4150’s demurrer to the 1AC. Home With K & K asserts similar arguments with respect to the other causes of action.

All of Home With K & K’s arguments go towards the purported validity of the proposed amendments. 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.) Such challenges to the pleadings

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003152: D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in Department 16C

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.) Home With K & K is free to challenge the amended pleading by way of appropriate motion.

4150 opposes and also raises arguments that challenge the validity of the proposed amendments, including that the causes of action fail for the same reasons raised in 4150’s demurrer to the First Amended Complaint. 4150’s challenges are more appropriately addressed by way of a demurrer or motion to strike and 4150 is free to challenge the amended pleading by way of appropriate motion.

Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, to allow amendments in furtherance of justice, and it is well established that California courts have a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others. (Board of Trustees v. Super. Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163 [absent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings to prevail]; Klopstock v.

Superior Court (1941) 17 Cal.2d 13, 19-20.) “If the motion to amend is timely made and the granting of the motion will not prejudice the opposing party, it is error to refuse permission to amend and where the refusal also results in a party being deprived of the right to assert a meritorious cause of action or a meritorious defense, it is not only error but an abuse of discretion.” (Morgan v. Superior Court (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527, 530.)

Neither Home With K & K nor 4150 raises any argument that they will suffer prejudice if leave to amend is granted. As noted above, they only challenge the validity of the proposed amendments, which is more preferably done by way of a demurrer or motion to strike.

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a 2AC is GRANTED.

Plaintiff may file and serve the 2AC no later than June 9, 2026.

Defendants may file and serve a response within 30 days of service of the 2AC, 35 days if served by mail.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003152: D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint in Department 16C

of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID 16030877014. 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 in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf.

Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.pdf.

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.