Soraya Maria Rigor vs. Estate of Leo Charles Curry

34-2020-00285047-CU-MC-GDS: Soraya Maria Rigor vs. Estate of Leo Charles Curry 10/08/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Sixth Amended Complaint in Department 53

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 25, located at 720 9th 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/my/sscdept25 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.

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

34-2020-00285047-CU-MC-GDS: Soraya Maria Rigor vs. Estate of Leo Charles Curry 10/08/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Sixth Amended Complaint in Department 53

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.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The demurrer of Defendant NRT West, Inc. dba Coldwell Banker Realty, erroneously sued as “Leo’s Employer: Coldwell Banker Realty” (“Defendant Coldwell”) to Plaintiff in pro per Soraya Rigor’s (“Plaintiff”) sixth amended complaint (“6AC”) is ruled upon as follows.

Defendant Coldwell’s requests for judicial notice are unopposed and GRANTED for the limited purposes permissible for judicial notice.

Plaintiff is admonished for filing an opposition which far exceeds the limits imposed by the California Rules of Court. Plaintiff’s opposition, titled “Plaintiff’s Amended Response to Notice of [Demurrer],” is 120 pages in length (48 pages in briefing and what appears to be 72 pages of exhibits), far exceeding the 15-page limit specified in California Rules of Court rule 3.1113(d). Plaintiff failed to seek leave to file an oversized brief pursuant to California Rules of Court rule 3.1113(e). While the Court considered the entirety of the “response,” Plaintiff in the future shall conform to the applicable page limits or obtain an order from the Court allowing her to exceed those limits in accordance with the Rules of Court. A failure to comply may lead to adverse rulings.

Plaintiff commenced this action on September 8, 2020, by filing her complaint naming numerous individuals and entities in regards to a mortgage loan secured by real property of her deceased mother. Notably, this case has an extensive history which includes voluminous filings and numerous challenges to the pleadings.

On June 7, 2024, Plaintiff filed her fifth amended complaint (“5AC”), which is titled on the Court’s docket as “Motion for Quiet Title Action” and the actual document is titled “Response to Court ORDER.” On August 13, 2024, this Court sustained Defendant Guild Mortgage Company, LLC’s (“Defendant Guild”) demurrer to Plaintiff’s 5AC without leave to amend. (8/13/24 Order.) In sustaining Defendant Guild’s demurrer without leave to amend, the Court noted: “The Court has now sustained Guild’s demurrer on three occasions, including three times on the basis of uncertainty and on the basis that the complaint is barred by the statute of limitations. No further leave is granted and the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.” (Ibid.)

Through this motion[1], Defendant Coldwell demurs to Plaintiff’s 6AC on grounds that it is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00285047-CU-MC-GDS: Soraya Maria Rigor vs. Estate of Leo Charles Curry 10/08/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Sixth Amended Complaint in Department 53

uncertain, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action, and that Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred by their respective statutes of limitations. (Demurrer, p. 3.) As such, Defendant Coldwell contends that its demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend. Relatedly, Defendant Coldwell contends that its demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend as Plaintiff filed her 6AC without leave to do so.

As a preliminary matter, on March 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Response to Tonia Smith - A Notice of Lis Pendens Based on Recent Surprise Discovery New Evidence Section 473 and Quiet Title Action.” It is unclear what this document purports to respond to or whether this is an attempt to file an amended pleading. On the one hand, this filing may have been a response to Tonia M Smith’s purported Demurrer to the 5AC and supporting documents, filed on January 8, 2025.[2] On the other hand, upon review of this filing, Plaintiff attached an unsigned and undated “Summons” and appears to also attach a “Complaint for Damages.” (See, e.g., 6AC, p. 17 [stating “Plaintiff alleges”], pp. 32-44 [which reference several “Cause[s] of Action”].)

As such, Plaintiff may have filed this document as an intended amended complaint, which would be Plaintiff’s 6AC. Defendant Coldwell treats these documents as the 6AC for purposes of its demurrer.

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 472, “A party may amend its pleading once without leave of the court at any time before the answer, demurrer, or motion to strike is filed, or after a demurrer or motion to strike is filed but before the demurrer or motion to strike is heard if the amended pleading is filed and served no later than the date for filing an opposition to the demurrer or motion to strike.” Subsequently, pursuant to CCP section 473(a), court may “in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceeding in other particulars.”

As set forth above, in this case, there have been multiple demurrers ruled on by the Court and an answer filed to a prior iteration of the complaint by Defendant Coldwell; as such Plaintiff no longer has the ability to file an amended complaint without leave of Court. The Court last sustained Defendant Guild’s demurrer without leave to amend. The Court’s docket reflects that Plaintiff did not file a motion for leave to amend her complaint after filing what the Court interpreted as her 5AC on June 7, 2024. Nor can the Court identify any Court order permitting amendment. As such, Plaintiff did not obtain leave of court permitting the filing this pleading.

An amendment or amended pleading filed without leave of court is voidable and may be ordered stricken on motion of a party or on a judge’s own motion as permitted by CCP section 436(b). (Loser v. E.R. Bacon Co. (1962) 201 Cal.App.2d 387, 390; Greshko v. County of Los Angeles (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 822, 830.) A judge may also strike an amended complaint which does not conform to the court’s prior rulings. (Water Coalition v. Santa Cruz County Local Agency Formation Comm’n (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329.) Under the authority conferred by CCP

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00285047-CU-MC-GDS: Soraya Maria Rigor vs. Estate of Leo Charles Curry 10/08/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Sixth Amended Complaint in Department 53

section 435, a judge may also strike a pleading filed without leave of court when leave is required. (See Loney v. Superior Court (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 719, 721-724; Code Civ. Proc. 436(b).)

Here, to the extent the March 28, 2025 filing is construed as an amended complaint, which would be Plaintiff’s 6AC, Plaintiff improperly filed this without first obtaining leave of court. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 472, 473.) As such, to the extent the filing purports to be an amended complaint the Court strikes Plaintiff’s 6AC, filed on March 28, 2025, which Plaintiff titled “Response to Tonia Smith - A Notice of Lis Pendens Based on Recent Surprise Discovery New Evidence Section 473 and Quiet Title Action.” The 6AC is deemed stricken. (See Hedwall v. PCMV, LLC (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 564, 572, 579 [affirming the trial court’s striking of the amended complaint on its own motion at the hearing on the defendant’s demurrer because the amended complaint was not authorized under section 472 or by court order].)

In light of the Court’s ruling striking the purported 6AC as unauthorized, it need not address the parties’ substantive arguments regarding Defendant Coldwell’s demurrer to the 6AC, as they are now moot.

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

[1] Defendant Coldwell filed its answer to Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint on July

12, 2023. This appears to be Defendant Coldwell’s first challenge to the pleadings. [2] This demurrer was dropped on July 1, 2025, on the basis that Smith is not a party to

the present action.