Motion for Reconsideration of its Demurrer
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration of its Demurrer in Department 8D
Tentative Ruling NOTICE:
***IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, THE HEARING WILL TAKE PLACE IN DEPARTMENT 13D, AT 1:30 P.M., BEFORE THE HONORABLE PETER K. SOUTHWORTH***
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, you must call Department 13D at (916) 874-5215 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 13D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/j/16155094202 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 5509 4202. 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 section 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
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration of its Demurrer 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 Courts 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 be forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided. TENTATIVE RULING:
Defendant Peach Tree Healthcares (Defendant or Peach Tree) motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
Defendant seeks reconsideration of the Courts January 5, 2026, Order overruling Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Amira Lindblooms (Plaintiff) Verified Complaint.
There are strict requirements for a motion for reconsideration. First, the motion for reconsideration must be heard by the same judge who issued the order sought to be reconsidered (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(a).) Second, the motion for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days after service of written notice of the of the order denying the motion. (Id., § 1008(b).) The Court finds the first two elements are satisfied in light of this matter being heard and considered by Judge Peter K. Southworth, the Order issued on January 5, 2026, and this motion was filed on January 15, 2026.
The problem is with the third requirement that the motion for reconsideration must be supported by new or different facts, circumstances or law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008(b).) The party seeking reconsideration must base its motion upon newly discovered facts, circumstances, or law. (The New York Times Co. v. Superior Court (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 206, 208.) The moving party must also provide a satisfactory explanation for the failure to make the showing at or before the time the challenged order was issued. (Ibid. [emphasis added].) The information must be such that the moving party could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered or produced it. (Id. at 213 [emphasis added].)
The legislative intent was to restrict motions for reconsideration to circumstances where a party offers the court some fact or circumstance not previously considered and some valid reason for not offering it earlier.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Reconsideration of its Demurrer in Department 8D
(Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500; Mink v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1338, 1342.)
As applied here, on November 20, 2025, Plaintiff filed a copy of the administrative complaint (Civil Rights Department (CRD) complaint) and right-to-sue letter, which was attached to Counsels declaration In Support of Opposition to Demurrer. (Egbert Decl. (filed 11/20/25), ¶ 2, Exh. 1.) Defendants motion for reconsideration proffers that this would be the new facts, which would support reconsideration of the Courts January 5, 2026, Order. Defendant addressed them for the first time in its arguments in its reply papers in support of its demurrer.
The Court is not persuaded that this would amount to new facts that could not have been discovered earlier with reasonable diligence, so as to support reconsideration of the Courts January 5, 2026, Order. Plaintiff indicated in April 2025 that the CRD complaint and right-to-sue letter would be produced in response to a formal discovery request. Defendant apparently did not do so, and instead simply filed its demurrer the next month. Therefore, Peach Tree cannot now base this motion on the fact that those materials were provided for the first time in opposition to a demurrer.
For the same reason, Defendant cannot now raise new arguments in support of its demurrer based on lack of service by plaintiff of those administrative materials. Based on the record, Defendants motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
The Parties respective requests for judicial notice are unopposed and GRANTED for the limited purposes appropriate for judicial notice.
Plaintiffs request for monetary sanctions made in opposing this motion is DENIED.
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.)