Zuri K. Colbert vs. Michelle Callilos

34-2021-00301184-CU-CR-GDS: Zuri K. Colbert vs. Michelle Callilos (Head of DHHS/CPS County of Sacramento) 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate November 18, 2025 Order 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:

Plaintiffs in pro per Nafisah Timmons and Zuri K. Colbert’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) motion to vacate the Court’s November 18, 2025, Order sustaining defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend is DENIED.

On June 27, 2025, defendants County of Sacramento, Michelle Callejas (erroneously sued as “Michelle Callilos”), Lisa Wullenwaber (erroneously sued as “Lisa Wallenwaber”), and Zackary Kollross (erroneously sued as “Zachary Kollross”) (collectively, the “County Defendants”) filed their demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”); the hearing was set for November 18, 2025. Plaintiffs’ Opposition to the demurrer was due November 4, 2025.

Plaintiffs did not file a timely opposition to the demurrer; therefore, on November 6, 2025, the County Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiffs’ Non-Opposition. On November 10, 2025 (the date of deadline for the County Defendants’ reply), Plaintiffs filed an untimely and impermissibly long opposition. The Court exercised its discretion not to consider Plaintiffs’ belated opposition, given Plaintiffs’ repeated failures to comply with Court deadlines. (See Order on Demurrer.) The Court sustained without leave to amend the County Defendants’ Demurrer on November 18, 2025. On December 9, 2025, the Court entered judgment in favor of the County Defendants in this matter.

Plaintiffs thereafter appealed the order and judgment, which the Third District Court of Appeal dismissed on April 24, 2026, on the ground the appeal was untimely. Plaintiffs then filed a petition for rehearing, which the Third District Court of Appeal denied on May 12, 2026. This motion was originally set to be heard on May 19, 2026, but was continued on the Court’s own motion to today’s date pending the ruling on Plaintiffs’ rehearing petition.

By this motion, Plaintiffs move for relief pursuant to the discretionary provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).

34-2021-00301184-CU-CR-GDS: Zuri K. Colbert vs. Michelle Callilos (Head of DHHS/CPS County of Sacramento) 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate November 18, 2025 Order in Department 16C

Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) provides that “[t]he court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party ... from a judgment, dismissal, order or other proceeding ... taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” A motion for relief from judgment under this portion of the section lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. (Elston v. City of Turlock (1985) 38 Cal.3d 227, 233.)

Plaintiffs claim their failure to timely oppose the demurrer was excusable because “the County structured conditions under which timely opposition was functionally impossible,” contending the County has somehow wrongfully used the demurrer process “to suppress the Plaintiffs[’] constitutional claims.” (Motion, 7:8-13.) The argument Plaintiffs are attempting to make here is unclear, but the County was entitled to demur to Plaintiffs’ pleading and this does not constitute mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect under section 473(b).

Indeed, in the three months the demurrer was pending, Plaintiffs filed repeated ex parte applications and miscellaneous motions, many of which concerned the pending demurrer, which evidences Plaintiffs’ clear knowledge of the existence of demurrer. Plaintiffs have not demonstrated or presented a well-reasoned argument explaining any basis for finding their failure to timely oppose the demurrer constitutes excusable neglect. Plaintiffs also contend that the County Defendants’ request for sanctions when opposing Plaintiffs’ numerous ex parte applications somehow inhibited them from timely opposing the demurrer.

This argument is rejected. To the extent Plaintiffs raise arguments regarding the merits of their action, the arguments are inapplicable to this motion.

Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00301184-CU-CR-GDS: Zuri K. Colbert vs. Michelle Callilos (Head of DHHS/CPS County of Sacramento) 06/02/2026 Hearing on Motion to Vacate November 18, 2025 Order in Department 16C

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.