Wenzler v. Bank of America, 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

25CV028720: WENZLER vs BANK OF AMERICA, et al. 07/07/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint in Department 16D

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:

*** NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G STREET IN 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. ***

The notice of demurrer does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 1.06, and does not provide the correct address for this Court’s Dept. 53, now designated as Dept. 16D. Moving counsel is directed to contact plaintiff and advise her of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing, along with the correct address for Dept. 16D. If moving counsel is unable to contact plaintiff prior to the hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing in person, by Zoom or by telephone.

Defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff in pro per Wenzler’s First Amended Complaint (“1AC”) is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiff commenced this action on 12/2/2025, filing a complaint purporting to assert causes of action for breach of contract, common counts and “bank fraud” and seeking damages of $6 Million. After a demurrer to the complaint was filed on 2/3/2026, plaintiff Wenzler filed her 1AC on 2/18/2026 which again purports to allege causes of action for breach of contract, common counts and “bank fraud.” Plaintiff’s filing of her 1AC superseded the original complaint and thus, rendered moot Defendants’ then-pending demurrer to the original complaint. Curiously, plaintiff nonetheless later filed on 3/2/2026 an “opposition to the demurrer of Sara Shahbazi and memorandum of points and authorities” directed to the original complaint which had been superseded by such point.

Thereafter, on 3/27/2026, defendants filed the present demurrer to the 1AC on the grounds that each cause of action therein is inadequately pled and also fatally uncertain. Since defendants’ filing of this demurrer on 3/27/2026, plaintiff has filed

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV028720: WENZLER vs BANK OF AMERICA, et al. 07/07/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint in Department 16D

numerous improperly submitted documents, many appearing to be statements bearing no caption, no specific title, and not specifying on the first page (in a caption) any reserved hearing date or pending noticed motion to which the document is intended to relate. Others appear to be made on pleading paper and bear a title (such as “declaration” or “Rule 8.4 misconduct, baith faith, no honest business” or “argumenting [sic] and correcting record”) but are still untethered to any reserved hearing date or pending noticed motion specified on the face of the document.

Certain of these documents even include upside down or vertical writing. None of these filed papers comply with California Rules of Court, Rule 2.111. Plaintiff is advised that if she seeks an order from the Court that is specifically permitted under the Code of Civil Procedure and/or California Rules of Court, she must reserve a hearing date and both duly file and serve a noticed motion. Simply filing documents in the Register of Actions will not lead to the issuance of any order.

Most importantly, in relation to defendants’ present demurrer, not a single document filed by plaintiff since 3/27/2026 is clearly and specifically labeled as an “opposition” to defendants’ demurrer to plaintiff’s 1AC (see, CRC 2.111(6) [“nature of the paper” must be stated on first page]) or bears in the caption (if any caption is provided in the document at all) a specific reference to the present hearing date, time and department. As required under Code of Civil Procedure §1005(b), plaintiff was required to file and serve any opposition papers no later than nine (9) court days prior to this hearing.

Notably, plaintiff instead filed on 5/22/2026 a motion which appears to seek leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which motion is currently set to be heard on 12/10/2026. This motion is not at issue and cannot be considered or addressed in connection with the hearing on defendants’ present demurrer.

As noted above, this Court finds that plaintiff did not file any opposition or other written objection to the present demurrer to the 1AC and under California law, this is construed as a concession on the merits of this demurrer to the 1AC. (See, e.g., D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.) Therefore, the present demurrer to the 1AC shall be sustained as unopposed.

Since this is the first challenge to plaintiff’s operative pleading on which the Court has had opportunity to rule, leave to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file and serve a second amended complaint no later than 7/27/2026. Although not required by Court rule or statute, plaintiff is directed to present a copy of this order if and when the amended complaint is presented for filing.

Demurring defendants to respond within 30 days if the second amended complaint is personally served, 35 days if served by mail.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV028720: WENZLER vs BANK OF AMERICA, et al. 07/07/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to First Amended Complaint in Department 16D

Demurring defendants to provide notice of this ruling and file proof of service of same within five (5) court days.

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