LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al.

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to “Public Notice – Civil Division – Wednesday Law and Motion Calendar” any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 8D, located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Julie G. Yap presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party 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, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

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.

The Court encourages parties to appear remotely for the hearing on the tentative ruling through the Court’s Zoom Application. But, any party wishing to appear in person may do so, provided that party notifies the Court by 4:00 the Court day before the hearing. The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link: https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 SIP Address: 16113421868@sip.zoomgov.com (833) 568-8864 ID: 16113421868 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 in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website 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 Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 8D

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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D 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****

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Peach Tree Healthcare, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Strike portions of the complaint of Plaintiff Amira Lindbloom (“Plaintiff”) is ruled upon as follows.

This case pertains to Plaintiff’s employment by Defendant from on or around July 1, 2021 to November 19, 2024. Plaintiff’s complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) associational discrimination: Gov. Code § 12940(a); Gov. Code. § 12926(o); (2) associational harassment: Gov. Code § 12940(j); Gov. Code. § 12926(o); (3) FEHA retaliation: Gov. Code § 12940(h); (4) Labor Code § 1102.5 Retaliation; (5) failure to prevent harassment, discrimination and retaliation: Gov. Code § 12940(k); (6) wrongful termination in violation of public policy.

Defendant now moves to strike certain allegations from Plaintiff’s complaint. However, Defendant’s notice of motion does not “quote in full the portions sought to be stricken except where the motion is to strike an entire paragraph,” as is required by California Rules of Court, rule 3.1322(a).

Here, Defendant’s notice of motion only states they 'move this Court for an Order Striking Improper Portions of Amira Lindbloom’s Complaint.” As Defendant is not seeking to strike an entire paragraph, cause of action, count, or defense, it was required to comply with Rule 3.1322(a) so it is clear to the Court what language Defendant’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV006421: LINDBLOOM vs PEACH TREE HEALTHCARE, et al. 06/01/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike in Department 8D

specifically seek to strike. As the notice of motion is currently phrased, the Court cannot discern exactly what portions of the complaint Defendant’s seeks to strike, and the Court will not make assumptions in this regard. While Defendant filed an amended notice of motion on May 22, 2026 in compliance with rule 3.1322(a), this filing occurred well after the 16 Court day deadline set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b).

Therefore, the motion is DENIED without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 3.1322(a). This ruling is without prejudice to the filing of another motion to strike which complies with the rule and with the notice requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b).

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.