STEINER vs TURNER, et al.

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 05/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave for First Amended Complaint in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE: The Sacramento Superior Court is transitioning operations from the Gordon D. Schaber and Hall of Justice buildings to the new Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse through a phased move plan beginning on April 13, 2026. Visit the court’s website at www.saccourt.ca.gov for the most current and up to date information regarding the transition. The physical and mailing address of the new downtown courthouse is:

Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse 500 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814

Please take notice, effective April 13, 2026, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse. The Honorable Christopher E. Krueger remains presiding over all Home Court proceedings, including Case Management and Law & Motion. All hearings currently scheduled or reserved after the effective date shall remain in place and will be heard in Department 16C.

Hon. Christopher E. Krueger Department 16C 916-874-7848

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff in pro per Tara Steiner’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“1AC”) is DENIED without prejudice.

This is a legal malpractice action arising from defendants Brian H. Turner and the Law Office of Brian H. Turner, P.C.’s (collectively, “Defendants”) representation of Plaintiff in an underlying personal injury action, Tara Steiner v. United States of America, et al., 2:20-cv-01580-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2020).

Plaintiff filed her Complaint against Defendants on June 13, 2024, asserting causes of action for negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty/fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”).

On October 14, 2024, Defendants filed a demurrer to the fraud and IIED causes of action and a motion to strike. On February 5, 2025, the Court issued a tentative ruling

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 05/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave for First Amended Complaint in Department 16C

sustaining the demurrer with leave to amend and dropping the motion to strike as moot. Oral argument was not requested, and the tentative ruling was affirmed on February 6, 2025. The Court stated “Plaintiff may file and serve a First Amended Complaint (“1AC”) on or before February 20, 2025.” Plaintiff did not file a 1AC. Instead, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on February 17, 2025. On June 24, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.

Plaintiff has moved for leave to amend once before. The Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend on October 23, 2025, based on Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324.

This is Plaintiff’s second attempt to obtain leave to amend her pleading. Trial is set for September 8, 2026, approximately four months from now.

Plaintiff asserts she does not seek to delete any causes of action, nor does she seek to add any new causes of action. She contends the amendments are limited to “clarifying and refining the existing allegations and to assert additional legal theories arising from the same core facts already pleaded.” (Motion at 1:26-2:2; 5:9-11.) Plaintiff asserts no “meaningful prejudice” can result from allowing amendment at this stage because Defendants are already fully aware of the underlying facts and circumstances.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324, subsection (b) a motion to amend must include a supporting declaration that specifies: (1) the effect of the amendment; (2) why the amendment is necessary and proper; (3) when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and (4) the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

The supporting declaration submitted by Plaintiff asserts that the effect of the amendment is to clarify and refine existing allegations and that the amendment is necessary to comply with the Court’s February 6, 2025, Order sustaining Defendants’ demurrer with leave to amend. (Declaration of Tara Steiner (“Steiner Decl.”), ¶¶ 3-4.) Even assuming the foregoing satisfies subsections (1) and (2) of Rule 3.1324(b), the remainder of Plaintiff’s declaration does not comply with subsections (3) and (4) by stating when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.

Paragraphs 6 through 35 of Plaintiff’s declaration only set forth dates and details regarding the dispute that arose between the parties and the procedural history of this case, which are not directly relevant to this motion. Plaintiff’s declaration also once again concludes by asserting, “I am requesting for Leave for First Amended Complaint for Third Cause of Action; Breach of Fiduciary Duty/Fraud, and [Fourth] Cause of Action; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.” (Steiner Decl., ¶ 36.)

The requirements in Rule 3.1324 are mandatory, and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 05/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave for First Amended Complaint in Department 16C

the Court will not grant a motion for leave to amend unless the moving party has complied with them.

Like Plaintiff’s first motion, this motion again fails to comply with Rule 3.1324, subsection (a), insofar as the motion does not “[s]tate what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located”, nor does it “[s]tate 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.” (Cal. Rul. Ct., Rule 3.1324(a).) Although Plaintiff has submitted a Proposed First Amended Complaint, it is not redlined to reflect any purported deletions or the amendments Plaintiff seeks to add.

Defendants also point out that the Proposed First Amended Complaint filed in connection with this motion on December 1, 2025, only includes causes of action for “BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY/ FRAUD” and “INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS” and it is not clear from this if Plaintiff intends to drop her causes of action for legal malpractice and breach of contract.

The Court notes for the record that Plaintiff filed an untimely reply on April 30, 2026, which was only three Court days prior to the hearing in violation of Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.

Accordingly, the motion for leave to file a 1AC is DENIED without prejudice because the motion does not comply with California Rules of Court 3.1324.

Defendants’ request for judicial notice is GRANTED insofar as the Court accepts the fact of their existence, not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v. Dep’t of Transp. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590 [judicial notice of findings of fact does not mean that those findings of fact are true]; Steed v. Department of Consumer Affairs (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 112, 120-121 [“[W]hile the existence of any document in a court file may be judicially noticed, the truth of the matters asserted in those documents, including the factual findings of the judge who was sitting as the trier of fact, is not entitled to notice.”].)

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

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011758: STEINER vs TURNER, et al. 05/05/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave for First Amended Complaint in Department 16C

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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID 16030877014. 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 in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/courtreporters/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.

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.