SECOND CHANCE ORGANIZATION LLC vs FORECLOSURE EXPERTS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 26CV003582: SECOND CHANCE ORGANIZATION LLC vs FORECLOSURE EXPERTS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Answer in Department 16D

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 16D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16146506749 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. 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. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 26CV003582: SECOND CHANCE ORGANIZATION LLC vs FORECLOSURE EXPERTS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Answer in Department 16D

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. *** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Second Chance Organization, LLC’s motion to strike self-represented Defendant Willie Peterson’s unverified answer is granted.

A motion to strike is appropriate to strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter asserted in any pleading and the Court may strike out all or any party of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the law. (See Code Civ. Pro. § 436 (a)-(c).) A motion to strike challenges portions of a cause of action that are substantively defective on the face of the complaint. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682-83; see also Code of Civ. Proc. § 437.) More specifically, a motion to strike should be granted to remove ’any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading,’ or where the pleadings are drawn in violation of a law, rule or court order. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 436.) Examples of ’improper’ matters include allegations which are ’at variance with the contract.’ (California Sugar & White Pine Agency v. Penoyar (1914) 167 Cal. 274, 279.

“The court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading, (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc, § 436.) A motion to strike is limited to the face of the challenged pleading or any matter of which the Court may take judicial notice. (CCP § 437(a).) The use of the motion to strike should be cautious and sparing. It should not be a procedural ’line item veto’. (PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal. App. 4th 1680, 1683.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 26CV003582: SECOND CHANCE ORGANIZATION LLC vs FORECLOSURE EXPERTS LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Answer in Department 16D

In the instant action Plaintiff’s complaint is verified. Defendant filed an unverified answer containing a general denial. Because the complaint was verified, Defendant may not respond with an unverified answer. (CCP §§ 431.30(d)-(f), 446(a).) Pleadings required to be verified in accordance with CCP § 446 are subject to a motion to strike when not verified. (E.g., DeCamp v. First Kensington Corp. (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 268, 283.) In addition, “[a] general denial is not appropriate in a verified answer.” (City of Hollister v. Monterey Ins. Co. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 455, 476, fn. 19.)

While Defendant opposed the motion, he simply requests leave to amend.

The motion to strike Defendant’s unverified answer is granted with leave to amend. No later than June 18, 2026, Defendant shall file and serve a verified answer to the verified complaint which specifically responds to each allegation in the verified complaint as required by CCP § 431.30(d).

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to notify Defendant immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at the hearing in person, via Zoom or by telephone, in the event Defendant appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.