JONES vs FOR HIS GLORY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF DEL PASO, et al.

24CV022402: JONES vs FOR HIS GLORY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF DEL PASO, et al. 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Amend Complaint to Include Punitive Damages in Department 25

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 25 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept25 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 in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/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.

24CV022402: JONES vs FOR HIS GLORY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF DEL PASO, et al. 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Amend Complaint to Include Punitive Damages in Department 25

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.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of Plaintiff in pro per Estralita Jones (“Plaintiff”) for leave to file an amended complaint to include punitive damages is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff commenced this action by filing her form Complaint on November 4, 2024.[1] Plaintiff alleges causes of action for breach of contract (wrongful eviction), intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and destruction of property. Named as defendants are For His Glory, First Baptist Church of Del Paso, Ben Rivers, Jovan Agee, Alaya Agee, Chris Brent (collectively, “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleges that, on April 14, 2024, “Defendants wrongfully terminated tenancy without just cause or due process. Defendants changed the locks, and forcefully removed all of the church's property and placed it outside without proper notice or authority of the law so that the property of Plaintiffs was stolen, given away by Defendants, or otherwise destroyed.”

On or about June 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Declaration which attached a copy of the Shared Use Agreement between the parties. The Declaration provides “Adding Written Lease Agreement to case.” (Jones Decl., filed 6/27/25.) The Parties appear to be referencing this as an amended complaint, though the Court’s Register of Actions does not show an amended complaint was filed.

Through this motion, Plaintiff seeks to amend the complaint to add a claim of punitive damages against Defendants. Plaintiff argues, that “Defendants’ actions were intentional and malicious causing Plaintiff great emotional distress and anxiety as the Plaintiff is now in therapy and unable to continue with her ministries. Such actions were carried out knowingly, willfully, and with a conscious disregard for Plaintiff’s rights, thereby warranting imposing punitive damages.” (Mov. MPA, p. 4:14-19.)

Defendants oppose the motion. In opposition, Defendants contend, inter alia, that Plaintiff’s motion does not satisfy the requirements for pleading punitive damages against a religious corporation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.14. Defendants also argue that Plaintiff has failed to meet the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022402: JONES vs FOR HIS GLORY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF DEL PASO, et al. 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Amend Complaint to Include Punitive Damages in Department 25

A. Code of Civil Procedure section 425.14

A claim for punitive damages against a religious corporation may not be included in a pleading unless the Court enters an order allowing plaintiff to amend the pleading. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.14.) Specifically, Code of Civil Procedure section 425.14 provides, in relevant part:

No claim for punitive or exemplary damages against a religious corporation or religious corporation sole shall be included in a complaint or other pleading unless the court enters an order allowing an amended pleading that includes a claim for punitive or exemplary damages to be filed. The court may allow the filing of an amended pleading claiming punitive or exemplary damages on a motion by the party seeking the amended pleading and upon a finding, on the basis of the supporting and opposing affidavits presented, that the plaintiff has established evidence which substantiates that plaintiff will meet the clear and convincing standard of proof under Section 3294 of the Civil Code.

(emphasis added.) Civil Code section 3294 provides, in relevant parts:

(a) In an action for the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing the defendant.

...

(c) As used in this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) “Malice” means conduct which is intended by the defendant to cause injury to the plaintiff or despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.

(2) “Oppression” means despicable conduct that subjects a person to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of that person’s rights.

(3) “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury.

Courts have interpreted 425.14 to require a plaintiff to provide “a sufficient prima facie showing

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022402: JONES vs FOR HIS GLORY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF DEL PASO, et al. 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Amend Complaint to Include Punitive Damages in Department 25

of facts to sustain a favorable decision if the evidence submitted is to be credited.” (Rowe v. Superior Court (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1711, 1723, internal citation omitted.) In Rowe, the appellate court explained that making the necessary showing under section 425.14 “require[s] only that a plaintiff demonstrate the existence of sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case for punitive damages, having in mind the higher clear and convincing standard of proof.” (Ibid.) “The trial court is not required to make any factual determination or to become involved in any weighing process beyond that necessarily involved in deciding whether a prima facie case for punitive damages exists.

Once the court concludes that such a case can be presented at trial it must permit the proposed amended pleading to be filed. If it concludes that no such case exists, then it properly rejects the proposed pleading amendment.” (Ibid.) “In making this judgment, the trial court's consideration of the defendant's opposing affidavits does not permit a weighing of them against the plaintiff's supporting evidence, but only a determination that they do not, as a matter of law, defeat that evidence.” (Ibid.)

The “clear and convincing evidence” standard requires that the evidence be “sufficiently strong to command the unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.” (In re Angelia P. (1981) 28 Cal.3d 908, 919, internal quotes omitted); Roberts v. Ford Aerospace & Communications Corp. (1990) 224 CA3d 793, 804.)

Here, Plaintiff fails to support her request to amend the complaint with sufficient supporting evidence to state a claim for punitive damages under the “clear and convincing” standard with respect to the religious corporation defendant. In her own declaration supporting the motion Plaintiff declares that Defendants changed the locks at the Church facility, where they had a space sharing agreement, without proper notice. Plaintiff further declares that Defendant put all of “our” church belongings outside, where they were either stolen, destroyed, or given away. Finally, Plaintiff declares that Defendants “knew these items were necessary for our church services.” (Jones Decl., ¶ 5.)

Taking these statements as true, Plaintiff has not presented evidence to support that, through their purported conduct, Defendants acted with intent to cause injury to her or with conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others. Likewise, Plaintiff has not presented evidence that that Defendants’ actions were taken with knowledge that they were violating Plaintiff’s rights and proceeded with disregard. To the extent Plaintiff asserts that Defendants knew items were necessary to for church services, Plaintiff has not yet provided evidence that Defendants’ conduct with respect to these items were in violation of her rights; nor has Plaintiff provided a basis for her contention regarding Defendants’ purported knowledge. Plaintiff has also not presented sufficient facts, even taking her statements as true, that Defendants acted with fraud.

As Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.14, to allege a prayer for punitive damages against a religious corporate defendant, Plaintiff’s motion is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022402: JONES vs FOR HIS GLORY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF DEL PASO, et al. 03/16/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other to Amend Complaint to Include Punitive Damages in Department 25

DENIED without prejudice as it relates to allegations against a religious corporation.

B. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324

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(a).) The party must also 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).) A court does not abuse its discretion by insisting that a party follow the applicable rules of procedure when seeking an amendment. (Hataishi v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp. (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1454, 1469.)

The Court finds that the motion fails to adhere to the requirements of California Rule of Court 3.1324. Plaintiff fails to submit a declaration that includes addresses the issues set forth in Rule 3.1324. Plaintiff also fails to include a copy of the proposed amended pleading. Further, Plaintiff has not identified what allegations will be added (or deleted) by page, paragraph, and line number. On this additional ground, the motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Disposition

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint to include punitive damages is DENIED without prejudice as set forth herein.

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

[1] The Court notes that the Complaint also appears to identify as a Plaintiff “Progressive

Faith Baptist Church.” It is unclear as to the nature of this apparent entity party, but an entity may only appear through counsel. To the extent that it is an unincorporated association, an unincorporated association is more like a corporation than an individual and thus, like a corporation, an unincorporated association can appear in court (other than small claims court) only through a licensed attorney. (Clean Air Transport Systems v. San Mateo County Transit Dist. (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 576, 578-579.)