RICCI vs MOHANNA, et al.

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

24CV013798: RICCI vs MOHANNA, et al. 02/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint in Department 53

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: Plaintiff Alvin Ricci, Jr.’s, motion for leave to file an amended and supplemental complaint is granted.

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice in support of reply is granted for the limited purposes permitted for judicial notice. (See, Evid. Code §451, subd. (a); §452, sub. (b)-(d); see also, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not to the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.)

Plaintiff filed a complaint on July 10, 2024 against Defendant Mohamed Mohanna alleging a cause of action for judicial dissolution of the parties‘ partnership, the J Street Reformation partnership. Plaintiff also seeks an accounting and partition of the partnership property. The partnership owns four properties in downtown Sacramento. Defendant filed a cross-complaint seeking judicial dissolution, accounting, partition of the partnership property, and also alleging a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.

According to Plaintiff, one of the properties owned by the partnership was recently foreclosed upon by a former partner of the partnership and was purchased by an individual or entity related to Defendant. Plaintiff asserts that the foreclosure was occasioned by Defendant’s failure to pay his portion of a promissory from a former partner. Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint alleging a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty against Defendant premised on allegations that Defendant intentionally placed the note in default allowing him to ultimately acquire that property. Plaintiff asserts that these allegations do not substantially increase the factual issues because Defendant’s failure to pay the promissory note has always been an issue in this case. (Comp. ¶ 10.)

Trial is scheduled for March 17, 2026.

Defendant opposes the motion on the basis that he will be prejudiced if Plaintiff is allowed to amend the complaint so close to trial.

“Trial courts are vested with the discretion to allow amendments in the furtherance of justice That Trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013798: RICCI vs MOHANNA, et al. 02/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint in Department 53

proceeding, has been established policy in this state resting on the fundamental policy that cases should be decided on the merits.” (Hirsa v Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.) Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit. Thus, the court's discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings. See Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920,939; Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal. App.4th 581, 596. A trial court has discretion to deny a motion for leave to amend where both “inexcusable delay and probable prejudice” is shown. (Magpali v.

Farmers Group (1998) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487-488 [leave to amend made on the eve of trial properly denied in the trial court’s discretion where the new cause of action would have greatly expanded the case after the “trial date was set, the jury [was] about to be impaneled, counsel, the parties, the trial court, and the witnesses [had] blocked the time, and the only way to avoid prejudice to the opposing party is to continue the trial date to allow further discovery ”].)

Defendant acknowledges the liberal policy favoring amended pleadings but contends that the prejudice he will suffer if the amendment is allowed outweighs that policy. Defendant contends that the proposed new cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty involves facts which are not contemplated by the current complaint. Defendant points out that the basis for the cause of action is a scheme to acquire partnership property that is evidenced by foreclosure sale which occurred approximately two months ago.

Defendant contends that he would need time to evaluate and potentially challenge the proposed amended complaint, conduct additional discovery, determine whether expert testimony is needed and prepare for trial. Defendant asserts that this cannot occur in the time remaining before trial. Defendant also notes that a trial continuance is not an option because this case was set for trial pursuant to CCP § 36 and any continuance would limited to 15 days absent a waiver from Plaintiff. (CCP § 36(f).)

Here, while the Court recognizes that trial is scheduled to begin on March 17, 2026, the Court finds that Defendant has not demonstrated that he will be prejudiced to such an extent that the Court should decline to apply the liberal standard allowing amended pleadings. To that end, Defendant has had notice of the proposed amended pleading since the instant motion was served electronically on January 6, 2026. The instant opposition was filed almost three weeks later on January 28, 2026. Yet while Defendant asserts that discovery, including experts, may be needed, Defendant’s counsel’s declaration does not provide any detail on what specific discovery might be needed or why any experts might be required. (Swanson Decl. ¶ 9.)

In any event, as seen in reply, the parties have agreed to adjust the discovery deadlines such that fact discovery can proceed up to March 1, 2026 and expert discovery can proceed through March 10, 2026. (Fairbrook Reply Dec. ¶ 2.) In addition, the parties have depositions scheduled based on the adjusted discovery deadlines. (Id. ¶ 3.)

Defendant also asserts that the proposed pleading may be subject to demurrer, but

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV013798: RICCI vs MOHANNA, et al. 02/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint in Department 53

does not actually indicate that he is intending to make such a challenge if the motion is granted. In any event, the validity of a proposed amendment is generally not considered in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. (California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281 [disapproved on other grounds in Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 407.]) Such challenges to the pleadings are more properly addressed in a demurrer or a motion to strike rather than in an opposition to a motion to amend. It is axiomatic that “the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co., supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at 281.)

Further, while Defendant is correct that CCP § 36(f) limits continuances for matter granted trial preference to 15 days, it is not clear that any continuance is needed at this time given the parties’ adjustment of the discovery deadlines. In the event, even if Defendant perceives the need for a trial continuance, Defendant remains free to seek one from the Presiding Judge pursuant to Local Rule 1.05.

The motion is granted.

Plaintiff shall separately file and serve the proposed amended complaint in the same form attached as Exhibit A to Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration no later than February 13, 2026.

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