IRVING vs CLINKENBEARD, et al.

25CV007411: IRVING vs CLINKENBEARD, et al. 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: The Sacramento Superior Court is transitioning operations from the Gordon D. Schaber and Hall of Justice buildings to the new Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse through a phased move plan beginning on April 13, 2026. Visit the court’s website at www.saccourt.ca.gov for the most current and up to date information regarding the transition. The physical and mailing address of the new downtown courthouse is:

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse 500 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814

Please take notice, effective April 13, 2026, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse. The Honorable Christopher E. Krueger remains presiding over all Home Court proceedings, including Case Management and Law & Motion. All hearings currently scheduled or reserved after the effective date shall remain in place and will be heard in Department 16C.

Hon. Christopher E. Krueger Department 16C 916-874-7848

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Michelle Irving’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“1AC”) is ruled upon as follows.

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff filed the original Complaint on March 27, 2025, naming only defendant Jason M. Clinkenbeard (“Jason”). The Complaint alleges a single cause of action for motor vehicle.

Plaintiff asserts that on August 20, 2025, opposing counsel informed Plaintiff’s counsel that the driver of the vehicle was actually Michelle Clinkenbeard (“Michelle”), Jason's wife. Thus, Plaintiff seeks leave to amend to add Michelle as a defendant.

The fillings in this case have been disjointed and created unnecessary confusion for the Court. Instead of filing all of the moving papers together, Plaintiff has filed them in a piecemeal fashion as follows.

25CV007411: IRVING vs CLINKENBEARD, et al. 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 16C

Plaintiff filed her first Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave on October 9, 2025. The notice states “PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on 10/9/25 or as soon as thereafter the matter may be heard.” There is no proof of service accompanying the Notice of Motion and Motion.

On November 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Hearing that states:

“PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 12, 2026 at 9:00 a.m., the matter may be heard in Department 54 of the above-entitled court, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, California 95814, Plaintiff MICHELLE IRVING will and hereby does move the Court for an Order Granting Motion to Leave to File First Amended Complaint adding Michelle Clinkenbeard as a defendant.”

(11/19/2025, Notice of Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint; bold in original.) The accompanying proof of service indicates the notice was served on counsel for defendant Jason on November 19, 2025.

Jason and Michelle filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion the same day – November 19, 2025. Therein, they oppose in part on the ground that the motion was never served and was discovered only during a random review of the Court’s online docket. Indeed, as noted above, there is no proof of service accompanying the motion filed by Plaintiff on October 9, 2025. Despite the lack of service of the original motion, Jason and Michelle’s opposition also presents arguments on the merits, so any issue of insufficient notice is waived. (Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 690, 697 [opposing a motion on the merits waives any defects or irregularities in the notice of motion, even if no notice was given at all].)

On February 13, 2026, Plaintiff filed a “Supplemental Declaration of Jude Redkey for Notice of Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint; Attachment A-Plaintiff’s Emergency Room Records.” The accompanying proof of service indicates the notice was served on counsel for defendant Jason on February 13, 2026.

Legal Standard

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.) Moreover, Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, to allow amendments in furtherance of justice. The policy of great liberality in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV007411: IRVING vs CLINKENBEARD, et al. 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 16C

permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding has been declared by our courts. (Klopstock v. Superior Court (1941) 17 Cal.2d 13, 19-20.) However, courts should not permit an amendment “where it would not serve any useful purpose.” (Maple Properties v. Harris (1984) 158 Cal.App.3d 997, 1012.)

Indeed, it is a rare case in which “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. Thus, absent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings will prevail.” (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.)

Discussion

Plaintiff’s counsel presents his declaration and supplemental declaration in support, wherein he avers that before August 20, 2025, neither he nor Plaintiff knew the driver of the vehicle was actually Michelle and not Jason. (Declaration of Jude Redkey, (“Redkey Decl.”), ¶ 3.) Counsel avers the proposed First Amended Complaint seeks to add Michelle as a defendant to ensure that the proper parties are before the Court. (Redkey Decl., ¶ 4.) No trial date has been set and discovery is ongoing. (Redkey Decl., ¶ 5.)

In his supplemental declaration, counsel further attests that Plaintiff’s emergency room records explain why she may not have recalled Michelle as the driver insofar as the records document that she had suffered a concussion and was experiencing concussion-related symptoms, including problems remembering things, trouble focusing, organizing or making decisions, and being slow to think, react, speak, or read. (Supplemental Declaration of Jude Redkey (“Redkey Supp. Decl.”), ¶¶ 6-8.)

Jason and Michelle oppose on the ground that any claims against Michelle are now time-barred because the Complaint alleges the subject accident happened on June 21, 2023, and personal injury actions must be filed within two-years pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 335.1. This argument goes to the validity of a proposed amendment, which 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 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.) Jason and Michelle are free to challenge the amended pleading by way of appropriate motion.

Further, the legal authorities cited by Jason and Michelle regarding rulings on motions for summary judgment are inapplicable to the motion for leave to amend, which is currently before the court.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV007411: IRVING vs CLINKENBEARD, et al. 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 16C

Jason and Michelle’s insistence that prejudice exists is also premised upon their argument that the claims against Michelle are time-barred. However, as noted above, they are free to challenge the amended pleading by way of appropriate motion. Prejudice only exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, result in loss of critical evidence, add to the costs of preparation, or increase the burden of discovery. (Magpali v. Earners Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471,486-88.)

Applying the policy of great liberality in permitting amendments to the pleadings, Plaintiff’s motion for leave is GRANTED.

Plaintiff may file the 1AC no later than May 22, 2026.

Defendants may file and serve a response within 30 days of service of the 1AC, or 35 days if served by mail.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or other 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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV007411: IRVING vs CLINKENBEARD, et al. 05/12/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in Department 16C

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.