THEARD, DONRECKA V. BLACK, MISTY

Judge Mosbarger – Law & Motion – Wednesday, May 13, 2026 @ 9:00 AM TENTATIVE RULINGS

1. 22CV02594 MOFFITT, DEREK C ET AL V. MOFFITT, TERESA L ET AL EVENT: Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint As an initial matter, the Court finds that the Reply filed by Plaintiffs Derek C. Moffitt and Sandi Moffitt (“Plaintiffs” herein) on May 7, 2026 is untimely pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §1005(b), and the Court declines to consider the arguments raised therein. Additionally, the arguments raised therein are “new evidence” which the Court cannot consider. See, San Diego Watercrafts, Inc. v.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 308, 312-316 [holding that trial court erred in considering new evidence submitted on reply and observing that “due process requires a party be fully advised of the issues to be addressed and be given adequate notice of what facts it must rebut in order to prevail.”] The Court therefore declines to consider the untimely Reply on that basis as well. Defendants Teresa L. Moffitt and Theldor Farms, Inc.’s (“Defendants” herein) Request for Judicial Notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code §452(d)(1).

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with Rule of Court Rule 3.1324(a)(3) [“State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.”] and Rule 3.1324(b)(4) [“The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.”]. Finally, even if the Court were to consider the merits of the untimely Reply, the arguments raised therein would not outweigh the finding that Plaintiffs’ Motion is untimely and extremely prejudicial to the Defendants.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint is denied. Counsel for the Defendants shall prepare and submit a form of order consistent with this ruling within two weeks.

2. 23CV00166 THEARD, DONRECKA V. BLACK, MISTY EVENT: Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel There is no proof of service in the Court’s file therefore the Court cannot confirm whether notice complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1362(d) or Code of Civil Procedure §1005. The Motion is continued to May 27, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. to allow sufficient time for notice and filing of a proof of service. Based on what is before the Court at this time, the Court is inclined to find good cause to grant the Motion. Additionally, the Court advances the Case Management Conference on calendar May 13, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and continues the Case Management Conference to July 15, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. Case Management Conference Statements are to be timely filed and served. ///