Janice Elizabeth Arnold vs. Antelope Manufactured Home Community, L.P.

34-2022-00318831-CU-BC-GDS: Janice Elizabeth Arnold vs. Antelope Manufactured Home Community, L.P. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

*** If oral arguments are requested or appearances are required, the hearing may be conducted in person or remotely via ZoomGov, which includes telephonic and teleconferencing options. No Court Call appearances will be permitted. If you choose to use Zoom you must use your first and last name on your ZoomGov account so the court can positively identify you. The Department 17A ZoomLink is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16173813009 and the ZoomGov ID is: 161 7381 3009. Appearances via videoconference using the above link are preferred. To appear on ZoomGov by phone, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the ZoomGov ID referenced above, available phone commands include *6 to mute/unmute or *9 to raise your hand. If you experience issues joining your hearing, please contact the clerk in Department 17A at (916) 874- 5487 for assistance.

Please take notice that effective April 13, 2026, the Presiding Judge Law & Motion calendar has been moved to Department 17A at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse, the Honorable Lawrence G. Brown presiding. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

Hon. Lawrence G. Brown Department 17A 916-874-5487 dept17A@saccourt.ca.gov ***

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Notice of Motion fails to provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system for the Law and Motion calendar in the Presiding Judge’s Department. (See Local Rule 1.05(C)-(D).) In pertinent part, Local Rule 1.05 provides that all noticed motions in the Presiding Judge’s Department shall include the following language in the notice:

Pursuant to Local Rule 1.05, the Court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., two court days before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative ruling may be accessed on the public portal. If the party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the department as

34-2022-00318831-CU-BC-GDS: Janice Elizabeth Arnold vs. Antelope Manufactured Home Community, L.P. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

referenced in the local telephone directory and receive the tentative ruling. If you do not call the Court and the opposing party by 12:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.

Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and/or self-represented litigants to advise them of Local Rule 1.05, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure for motions noticed in the Presiding Judge’s Department, and the manner to request a hearing. If moving counsel is unable to contact opposing parties prior to hearing, they are ordered to appear at the hearing by Zoom or by telephone.

This action involves over thirty individual property owners who have alleged a variety of defects and other nuisances associated with the Antelope Manufactured Home Community (the “Park”), located in North Highlands, California. Plaintiffs Janice Elizabeth Arnold, et al. (“Plaintiffs”) filed the Complaint on April 25, 2022, alleging causes of action for nuisance, breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, breach of statutes, breach of the warranty of habitability, breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, and violation of Business & Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.

Discovery was stayed in this case from October 20, 2022 through May 23, 2024, while an appeal was pending concerning the Court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the order denying the motion to compel arbitration, and the remittitur was received by the Court on May 28, 2024.

Defendants Antelope Manufactured Home Community, L.P. and Antelope Manufactured Home Community GP, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) were initially represented by Rudderow Law Group and Wasson & Associates, Inc. On January 13, 2026, the Rudderow Law Group withdrew as counsel of record; Wasson & Associates, Inc. continued to represent Defendants. Ropers Majeski, PC substituted in as co-counsel in March 2026. As of July 2026, Wasson & Associates, Inc. is no longer representing Defendants in this case.

Trial was originally scheduled for May 4, 2026. On April 3, 2026, Defendants moved to continue trial based on the substitution of Ropers Majeski, PC and an argument that additional time was needed to complete discovery, including taking Plaintiffs’ depositions and expert discovery. The Court granted the motion and continued the trial to August 11, 2026.

Defendants now move for a second trial continuance, arguing that “substantial outstanding

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00318831-CU-BC-GDS: Janice Elizabeth Arnold vs. Antelope Manufactured Home Community, L.P. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

discovery cannot be completed before trial, including the depositions of fourteen Plaintiffs who have not yet been deposed, expert site inspections . . ., expert depositions, and the depositions of two Plaintiffs whose counsel has filed motions to be relieved as counsel, with hearings scheduled for July 27, 2026.” (Mot. 2:8-13.) Defendants further argue that “one Plaintiff is in pro per, reportedly unhoused, and has not yet been located despite diligent investigative efforts.” (Id. at 2:13-16.) Defendants ask that trial be continued by six months, stating that the prior three-month continuance “has proven insufficient given the extraordinary volume and complexity of discovery that remains outstanding.” (Id. at 4:21-24.)

Plaintiffs oppose the motion, rejoining that Defendants’ “purported ‘need’ for a trial continuance is the direct result of [their] own unnecessary delay and . . . lack of participation in the outstanding discovery in this matter.” (Opp’n 3:3-6.) Plaintiffs argue:

Defendants point to the remaining Plaintiffs’ depositions, all of which, except for one, are presently noticed to be conducted before trial, as grounds for the present continuance. However, this ignores the basic problem, which is discovery has been open for years.

Serrano Beltran is a pro per Plaintiff and thus not under the control of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s office when it comes to scheduling a deposition. [Citation.] This has been the case since June of 2025. [Citation.] Defendants have had plenty of time to schedule a deposition, prepare a motion to compel, and file the probable motion for terminating sanctions. [Citation.] This has not been done. [Citation.]

Finally, Plaintiffs’ expert site inspection was completed on July 15, 2026. At no time in the four-year life span of this case did Defendants notice an inspection, even though they have ownership and control of the Park. [Citation.]

Defendants have had years to complete discovery and even three months since the last request for a continuance. The Court should deny this motion.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00318831-CU-BC-GDS: Janice Elizabeth Arnold vs. Antelope Manufactured Home Community, L.P. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

(Opp’n 3:12-24 [fn. omitted].)

“To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(a).) “Although continuances of trial are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits.” (Id., rule 3.1332(c).) “The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Ibid.)

“Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: [¶] (6) A party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or [¶] (7) A significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) “In ruling on a motion . . . for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination[,]” which may include:

(1) The proximity of the trial date;

(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party;

(3) The length of the continuance requested;

(4) The availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance;

(5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance;

(6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay;

(7) The court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials;

(8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial;

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00318831-CU-BC-GDS: Janice Elizabeth Arnold vs. Antelope Manufactured Home Community, L.P. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

(9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance;

(10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and

(11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

Here, the Court finds that Defendants have not shown good cause for the continuance. The stay of discovery from Defendants’ appeal of the Court’s denial of their motion to compel arbitration ended on May 23, 2024, over two years ago, and Defendants did not start noticing depositions until September of 2025. (See Decl. of Adrian M. Paris ISO Opp’n ¶ 5.) Moreover, Plaintiff Serrano Beltran has been pro per since June of 2025, almost all Plaintiffs have their depositions scheduled to occur before trial (August 11, 2026), and Plaintiffs completed their expert site inspection on July 15, 2026. Finally, the Court finds that the fact that Plaintiffs Felipe Zamora and Anabertha Perez recently became in pro per does not constitute a significant change in case status that makes the case unready for trial.

For the stated reasons, Defendants’ motion to continue trial is denied.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

*** This case has been assigned to Department 17A for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 17A. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 12:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing. If a proper request for hearing is not made, this shall become the order of the Court.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2022-00318831-CU-BC-GDS: Janice Elizabeth Arnold vs. Antelope Manufactured Home Community, L.P. 08/07/2026 Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial in Department 17A

services at their own expense, pursuant to Government Code section 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, 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. ***