Soraya Maria Rigor vs. Estate of Leo Charles Curry

34-2020-00285047-CU-MC-GDS: Soraya Maria Rigor vs. Estate of Leo Charles Curry 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Please take notice, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Soraya Maira Rigor’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to file a sixth amended verified complaint is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s moving papers do not comply with California Rules of Court, Rules 3.1110(a) or 3.1112(a) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1010, because Plaintiff did not include a notice of motion. Plaintiff was required to file a notice of motion that states the nature of the order being sought, the grounds upon which it was made, and the papers upon which it is based. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1112(a) [“the papers filed in support of a motion must consist of at least the following: (1) A notice of hearing on the motion”]; Cal.

Rules of Court, Rule 3.1110(a) [“A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order”]; Code Civ. Proc., § 1010 [“[n]otices must be in writing, and the notice of a motion . . must state when, and the grounds upon which it will be made, and the papers, if any, upon which it is to be based”].) Because Plaintiff does not include a notice of motion, she also failed to provide the Court’s address and notice of Local Rule 1.06.

Plaintiff’s failure to include a notice of motion is a fatal deficiency, and thus, the motion is DENIED on this basis.

Additionally, the Court notes that the proof of service filing with the motion does not indicate which parties, if any, were served with the motion. Nevertheless, as discussed below, at least one defendant filed a substantive opposition. Thus, the Court also denies Plaintiff’s motion for the reasons discussed below.

In this action, Plaintiff filed a complaint naming numerous individuals and entities in regards to a mortgage loan secured by real property of Plaintiff’s deceased mother.

On April 1, 2026, Plaintiff filed four documents including a “First Amended Complaint to Quiet Title Action,” “Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO First Amended Complaint to Quiet Title Action,” “Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Index of

34-2020-00285047-CU-MC-GDS: Soraya Maria Rigor vs. Estate of Leo Charles Curry 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 16C

Exhibits” and an “Index of Exhibits.” Plaintiff appears to seek leave to amend the complaint “based on recent discovery of new evidence that shows a void ad initio of the original sale transaction on June 14, 2005.” (“First Amended Complaint to Quiet Title Action” at p. 25-26.)

Defendant NRT West, Inc. dba Coldwell Bank Realty (“Defendant”) filed an opposition. Defendant argues, among other points, that Plaintiff failed to include a proposed Sixth Amended Complaint and failed to provide legal authority demonstrating why the Court should grant her leave to amend.

On May 18, Plaintiff filed four additional documents, including a “Re-Notice of Motion and Motion for Leave to File a an [sic] Amended Complaint,” “Memorandum of Points and Authorities ISO Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion,” “Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Amend,” and “[Proposed] Sixth Amended Complaint of an adverse possession claim to quiet title.”

Both parties filed requests for judicial notice. However, given the deficiencies with Plaintiff’s moving papers, the Court need not consider any of the documents noticed. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, the parties’ respective requests for judicial notice are granted for the limited purposes permitted for judicial notice. (See, Evid. Code §451, subd. (a); §452, sub. (b)-(d); see also, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not to the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145-148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.)

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(a), a motion to amend a pleading before trial must:

(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments;

(2) State 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; and

(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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00285047-CU-MC-GDS: Soraya Maria Rigor vs. Estate of Leo Charles Curry 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 16C

The motion must also include a separate declaration that must specify:

(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.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1324(b).)

Plaintiff has failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. First, among the filings made on April 1, 2026, Plaintiff has not included a copy of the proposed amended pleading. Instead, on May 19, 2026, far past the due date for moving papers under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b), Plaintiff filed a document entitled, “[Proposed] Sixth Amended Complaint of an adverse possession claim to quiet title.” Obviously, such document is substantially untimely under section 1005, subdivision (b) and cannot be considered for purposes of this motion. This deficiency alone warrants denial of Plaintiff’s motion.

However, the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s moving papers do not end there. Plaintiff’s moving papers fail to state what allegations will be deleted or added and does not identify those allegations “by page, paragraph, and line number.” Plaintiff also fails to file a separate declaration that states the effect of the amendment, why the amendment is necessary and proper, when the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered, and the reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier. These deficiencies provide additional and separate grounds for denial of Plaintiff’s motion.

Finally, the Court notes that the proposed sixth amended complaint continues to name Tonia Smith even though the case against her was dismissed for failure to serve summons and complaint within three years. (See Minute Order, dated 5/14/2026.) Accordingly, Plaintiff is reminded that Tonia Smith should not be named as a defendant in any proposed future amended pleading.

The Court need not proceed further in identifying further defects in Plaintiff’s motion.

Accordingly, the motion for leave to file a sixth amended complaint is DENIED.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00285047-CU-MC-GDS: Soraya Maria Rigor vs. Estate of Leo Charles Curry 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 16C

This ruling, however, is without prejudice to Plaintiff filing and serving a code-compliant motion to amend the complaint.

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.)

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar 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 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. 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/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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2020-00285047-CU-MC-GDS: Soraya Maria Rigor vs. Estate of Leo Charles Curry 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint in Department 16C

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.