In The Matter of The Keith V. Anderson Family Trust, Dated Aug. 29 1994

24PR001989: The Keith V. Anderson Family Trust 04/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Sever Civil Causes of Action and Transfer them to Separate Civil Action; Dismiss Civil Causes of Action; Bifurcate Civil Causes of Action; Dismiss Causes of Action Alleging Conspiracy Against Melchin in Department 129

are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 129 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept129 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 3352 9231. 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 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 Respondent and Movant Ronald Melchin (“Respondent”) filed a motion to sever, motion to dismiss, motion to bifurcate, and motion to dismiss. The motion is denied as follows.

Motion to Sever/Bifurcate Respondent seeks to sever the first, second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth causes of action in the first amended petition filed March 18, 2025, pursuant to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24PR001989: The Keith V. Anderson Family Trust 04/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Sever Civil Causes of Action and Transfer them to Separate Civil Action; Dismiss Civil Causes of Action; Bifurcate Civil Causes of Action; Dismiss Causes of Action Alleging Conspiracy Against Melchin in Department 129

Probate Code section 801 and Code of Civil Procedure section 1048(b). Alternatively, Respondent seeks to have these claims dismissed, or bifurcated.

Probate Code section 801 states a court “may order that an action or proceeding not specifically provided in this code be determined in a separate civil action.” (Prob. Code, § 801.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 1048, subdivision (b) states: “The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any cause of action, including a cause of action asserted in a cross-complaint, or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues, preserving the right of trial by jury required by the Constitution or a statute of this state or of the United States.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048(b).)

Respondent contends that the causes of action against him are not provided for in the Probate Code, and are all civil causes of action. However, because the Court is empowered to hear “claims, causes of action, or matters that are normally raised in a civil action to the extent that the matters are related factually to the subject matter of a petition filed under this part,” the Court rejects this basis. (Prob. Code, § 855.) Because Petitioner’s first amended petition raises claims pursuant to Probate Code section 850, the Court, in its discretion, may hear the claims, causes of action, or matters normally raised in a civil action. The Court declines to sever the claims on this basis.

Second, Respondent maintains that bifurcation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1048, subd. (b), empowers this Court to transfer the causes of action in question to a civil department, stating “[o]rdering separate trials would both promote convenience and avoid prejudice.” (Motion, 14:15.) The Court is not persuaded that severance and bifurcation will promote convenience and avoid prejudice. The causes of action contain substantial common factual and legal issues. Primarily, the Court observes that the alleged breaches occurred as a result of potential fraud by numerous named and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24PR001989: The Keith V. Anderson Family Trust 04/15/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Sever Civil Causes of Action and Transfer them to Separate Civil Action; Dismiss Civil Causes of Action; Bifurcate Civil Causes of Action; Dismiss Causes of Action Alleging Conspiracy Against Melchin in Department 129

unnamed Doe parties. As a result, the factual circumstances giving rise to the claims have substantial commonalities. Moreover, as multiple claims are based on the same underlying facts and legal theory—fraud—the claims necessarily share common legal issues. To the extent Respondent argues that denial of the instant motion will result in prejudice, any such prejudice can be addressed prior to, or at trial, via motions in limine or with appropriate instructions.

The Court is not persuaded that separate trials on the issues in this case will promote the ends of justice, the convenience of witnesses, and judicial efficiency and economy. Accordingly, the motion to sever and, in the alternative, motion to bifurcate, is DENIED.

Motion to Dismiss Respondent’s basis to dismiss is made on two grounds: (1) Probate Code section 856.5 and (2) the failure to comply with Civil Code section 1714.10. Respondent failed to cite any legal basis for this motion in the notice or in the memorandum of points and authorities, as neither cited authority permits dismissal of a cause or action. (California Rules of Court, rule 3.1110 (a), 3.1112(d)(3).) It is unclear whether Respondent moved pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581 or another basis. Without a discernible legal basis or theory, the Court cannot grant this relief.

The motion is DENIED in its entirety.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)