Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint 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 on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

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.

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint in Department 16D

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:

*** 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 Court finds in its file no proof of service demonstrating moving plaintiff’s service of the Notice of Disclosure issued on 6/4/2026, despite being directed to serve all other parties with the Notice of Disclosure “forthwith.” Moving plaintiff is directed to serve the Notice of Disclosure on all other parties forthwith and to file proof of service within five (5) court days. ***

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint is ruled upon as follows.

The notice of motion does not comply with Code of Civil Procedure §1010 or CRC Rule 3.1110(a), requiring the moving party to state the “grounds” for the motion presented.

Factual Background

This employment action was commenced in December 2019 and the August 2026 trial date was recently continued to November 2026 by order of the Presiding Judge pursuant to plaintiff’s motion to continue. However, defendants’ motion for summary adjudication which was filed on 4/23/2026 remains on calendar for hearing on 7/16/2026, as advanced by this Court’s 4/27/2026 order granting defendants’ ex parte application.

Plaintiff filed the present motion on 6/9/2026, seeking leave to file a Third Amended

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint in Department 16D

Complaint which, according to the moving papers, makes substantial revisions to the currently operative complaint including wholesale revisions to multiple causes of action as well as both the addition and deletion of several other causes of action. (See, e.g., Not. of Mot., pp.2-5; Thrasher Decl., Ex. B.) Indeed, the moving declaration by attorney Thrasher indicates in Paragraph 62 that “the entire complaint was redone.” The Court notes that while the currently operative Second Amended Complaint consists of 17 pages and 82 paragraphs, the proposed Third Amended Complaint spans 97 pages and includes over 600 paragraphs notwithstanding Code of Civil Procedure §425.10’s requirement that a complaint set forth the facts constituting the cause(s) of action in “ordinary and concise language.” (Underline added for emphasis.)

Defendants oppose, arguing inter alia that plaintiff has unreasonably delayed his request for leave to amend and the wholesale changes to the complaint will cause substantial prejudice inasmuch as the parties have already engaged in substantial discovery based on the existing complaint and now, shortly before trial, plaintiff proposes to make “sweeping” changes to his pleading which materially expand the factual allegations without adequate explanation for waiting to seek leave to amend. Defendants add that they have pending now a motion for summary adjudication directed at the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint but plaintiff now seeks to completely alter these allegations.

The opposition also contends that several of the proposed new causes of action are barred by either the applicable statutes of limitation or the Government Claims Act or are otherwise inapplicable to public entities.

Discussion

At the outset, the Court acknowledges there is a vast body of California law which confirms that amendments to pleadings are to be granted with great liberality before trial and sometimes even during trial. (See, e.g., Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 736.) While there is also authority which indicates courts have discretionary power to deny leave to amend when the amendment would result in prejudice to the opposing party (see, e.g., Singh v. Southland Stone, U.S.A., Inc. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 338; Morgan v.

Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1959) 172 Cal.App.2d 527; Slack v. Metropolitan Trust Co. (1935) 9 Cal.App.2d 87) and/or where there was an unwarranted delay in seeking to amend (see, e.g., People ex rel. Department of Public Works v. Jarvis (1969) 274 Cal.App.2d 217; Nelson v. Specialty Records, Inc. (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 126). Additionally, despite the liberal policy in allowing amendments, leave to amend is appropriately denied where the plaintiff seeks leave to amend after the defendant has moved for summary judgment (or summary adjudication) directed at the unamended complaint. (See, e.g., Falcon v.

Long Beach Genetics, Inc. (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1263, 1280.) “Thus, when a plaintiff seeks leave to amend [the] complaint

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint in Department 16D

only after the defendant has mounted a summary judgment motion directed at the allegations of the unamended complaint, even though the plaintiff has been aware of the facts upon which the amendment is based, ‘[i]t would be patently unfair to allow plaintiffs to defeat [the] summary judgment motion by allowing them to present a ‘moving target’ unbounded by the pleadings.’” (Id. (quoting Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168, 176.)

Because it is undisputed that (1) defendants have had pending since 4/24/2026 a motion for summary adjudication which is clearly directed at several of the causes of action alleged in the currently operative Second Amended Complaint filed on 12/13/2022 and (2) plaintiff is now seeking to file a Third Amended Complaint which redrafts substantial portions, if not the entirety, of the existing Second Amended Complaint, this Court shall exercise its discretion by denying the present motion to amend. (See, e.g., Falcon v.

Long Beach Genetics, Inc., supra; Melican v. Regents of Univ. of California, supra; Van v. Target Corp., supra.) Allowing plaintiff to completely rework the operative pleading and both add and delete several causes of action shortly before the pending summary adjudication motion is set to be heard on 7/16/2026 is likely to cause undue substantive prejudice to defendants insofar as their motion will no longer be directed to the operative complaint and defendants are not likely to have sufficient time to prepare a new motion for summary judgment/adjudication which can be heard at least 30 days prior to the new November 2026 trial date.

This alone militates against granting leave to amend at this time without regard to the other arguments advanced in support of and/or opposition to this motion to amend.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, the present motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint is DENIED.

This ruling, however, is without prejudice to plaintiff’s right to seek by noticed motion leave to amend the complaint following the disposition of the pending motion for summary adjudication. Moving counsel is advised that motions to amend must comply in all respects with the mandatory provisions of CRC Rule 3.1324(a) and (b) and motions which do not comply with these requirements may be denied.

Moving party 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.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2019-00271228-CU-OE-GDS: Jalal Soltanian-Zadeh vs. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 07/07/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint in Department 16D