Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
24PR001989: The Keith V. Anderson Family Trust 05/20/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 129
Tentative Ruling
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
MOTION FILED: 2/4/2026
RE: The Keith V. Anderson Family Trust (Bypass Trust), created via The Anderson Family Trust, Dated August 29, 1994 (A-B-C Trust)
MOVING PARTY: Petitioner George Baslaugh Attorney: Dorian Jackson, (310) 359-9201
RESPONDING PARTY: Ronald H. Melchin, Respondent Attorney: John T. Lupton, (213) 493-6400
RESPONDING PARTY: David O. McReynolds, Respondent Attorney: Leland J. Ellison, (916) 480-0720
NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative ruling may be downloaded off the courts website. If the party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the Probate Department at (916) 875-2529 between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing and receive the tentative ruling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.
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 129 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.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
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?”
24PR001989: The Keith V. Anderson Family Trust 05/20/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 129
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 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 forward the form to the Court Reporters Office and an official reporter will be provided.
TENTATIVE RULING The motion for judgment on the pleadings is DROPPED from calendar.
This matter was continued from April 15, 2026 due to the objection raised to a commissioner hearing this matter.
Petitioner Goerge Bauslaugh (Petitioner) filed a petition to determine validity of the purported amendment to the Keith V. Anderson Family Trust based on excess of authority on July 8, 2024. Petitioner later filed a first amended petition, seeking, in part, a finding of fraud and cancellation of instruments.
When the moving party is the plaintiff, there is only one ground for a motion for judgment on the pleadings: the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(c)(1)(A).) The grounds for the motion shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., §438 (d).). The court must accept as true the factual allegations of the complaint and must give them a liberal interpretation. (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 515-516.) The Court must disregard all controverted allegations in the complaint and accept all facts properly pleaded in the answer. (Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, 1379-1380.)
A motion by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings is in the nature of a general demurrer, and the motion must be denied if the defendants pleadings raise a material issue or set up affirmative matter constituting a defense. (Maclsaac v. Pozzo (1945) 26 Cal.2d 809, 812-813.) The Court assumes the truth of all material allegations in the challenged pleading no matter how
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
24PR001989: The Keith V. Anderson Family Trust 05/20/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 129
improbable. (Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1397.) The grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 438(d).) Consequently, in ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a trial court may not consider any extrinsic evidence including but not limited to declarations. (See, e.g., Autonomous Region of Narcotics Anonymous v. Narcotics Anonymous World Services, Inc. (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 950, 962.)
Respondent Ronald Melchin (Respondent) opposes, in part, on the grounds that the First Amended Petition filed March 18, 2025 supersedes this petition, filed July 8, 2024.
Petitioner tries to distinguish the substance of the two petitions to assert that this motion for judgment on the pleading filed July 8, 2024, was not superseded by an amended pleading. This fails for two reasons. Not only does Petitioner concede the fact that the March 18, 2025 pleading is his First Amended Petition (Memorandum of Points and Authorities, 7:15, 17-18.), but both petitions seek to determine the validity of documents relating to the trust. Petitioner cites to Estate of DAvila (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 123 and In re Arthur S. (1991) 228 Cal.
App. 3d 814 to support his contention that the amended petition does not supersede the original pleading or this motion. In re Arthur S. discusses supplemental petitions for juvenile court cases and was not considered. (Andersen v. Hunt (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 722, 730 [[I]t is axiomatic that cases are not authority for propositions not considered.].)
Estate of DAvila held that where multiple petitions have been filed, and objections were filed only as to one petition, the probate judge is entitled to proceed with its disposition on the basis that it is unopposed without having to consider objections to previous proceedings appearing in the probate file. (Estate of DAvila (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 123, 128.) This is distinguishable to the present matter as Petitioner seeks judgment on a petition filed July 8, 2024, while also having filed a first amended petition on March 18, 2025.
These are not objections specifically raised to a petition, but a pleading and an amended pleading. However, In re Smiths Estate (1935) 4 Cal.App.2d 548, 549, acknowledges that an amended pleading supersedes the original pleading. (In re Estate of Smith (1935) 4 Cal.App.2d 548, 549 [The amended petition was thereafter filed and [] said amended petition superseded the original petition ].) Thus, the Court construes, by Petitioners own characterizations, that the original petition to determine validity of trust documents was superseded by the March 18, 2025 petition to determine validity of recorded instruments.
The matter is DROPPED as moot.
This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
24PR001989: The Keith V. Anderson Family Trust 05/20/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 129