JONES vs FOR HIS GLORY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF DEL PASO, et al.

24CV022402: JONES vs FOR HIS GLORY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF DEL PASO, et al. 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in Department 8D

Tentative Ruling

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 8D Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16113421868 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 1342 1868. 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.

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.

24CV022402: JONES vs FOR HIS GLORY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF DEL PASO, et al. 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint 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 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 OR GORDON D. SCHABER COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION.***

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants First Baptist Church of Del Paso Heights (erroneously sued as For His Glory, First Baptist Church of Del Paso), Ben Rivers, Jovan Agee, Alaya Agee, and Chris Brent’s (“Defendants”) motion to strike claims for attorney fees from Plaintiff Estralita Jones, in pro per, (“Jones”) and Progressive Faith Baptist Church’s (“Faith Baptist”) first amended complaint is ruled on as follows.

Progressive Faith Baptist Church

As a preliminary matter, the Court is compelled to note that, unlike a natural person, a corporation may not represent itself in court, except in small claims proceedings. (Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284, fn. 5.) The Complaint alleges that Faith Baptist is a corporation. (Compl., ¶ 3.) Because Jones is not a licensed attorney, Jones cannot represent Faith Baptist and may not file papers or appear in court on Faith Baptist’s behalf. (CLD Construction, Inc. v. City of San Ramon (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1141, 1145 [corporation may not be represented by corporate officer or employee who is not a licensed attorney].)

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 436, “The court may . . . at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false, or improper matter inserted in any pleading.”

On the Court’s own motion, the Court strikes the pleading to the extent it is filed on behalf of Plaintiff Progressive Faith Baptist Church because the Complaint was filed by

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022402: JONES vs FOR HIS GLORY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF DEL PASO, et al. 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in Department 8D

an individual that is not a licensed attorney. This order is made with leave to amend to the extent an amended complaint is filed by a licensed attorney on Faith Baptist’s behalf.

Jones may properly represent herself and her interests in this litigation.

Background

This dispute relates to a Written Agreement for the shared use of Defendant First Baptist Church of Del Paso Heights’ facilities. (See the “Written Agreement for 2020” attached to the Declaration of Estralita Jones, filed June 27, 2025.) Jones filed an initial complaint on November 4, 2024, asserting four causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (3) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (4) destruction of property. (Compl., ¶ 8.) Jones checked boxes praying for attorney fees in Paragraphs 10.c. and BC-5 on the Judicial Council form Complaint. (See Compl.) Jones filed her Declaration on June 27, 2025, apparently to supplement the Complaint by providing the underlying contract. Defendants treat the Complaint as so amended. (Federico Decl., ¶ 5.)

Defendants move to strike the claims for attorney’s fees on the basis that Jones has not presented any statutory or contractual basis to recover attorney fees and that Jones is self represented. (MPA, at p. 4:4–13.)

Jones opposes the motion on the basis that she may become represented at some point in the course of the litigation. (Opp., at p. 2:10–15.)

Legal Standard

A party may file a motion to strike “any irrelevant, false, or improper” matter in any pleading or “any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with [law.]” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435, 436.) “The grounds for a motion to strike shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437, subd. (a).) A motion to strike can be used to challenge challenge a prayer for attorney fees. (See Brown v. USA Taekwondo (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 1077, 1089; Grieves v. Super Ct. (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 159, 164.) In considering a motion to strike damages for failure to allege sufficient facts, the court considers the allegations in a pleading as a whole, in context, and assuming their truth. (Clauson v. Super Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV022402: JONES vs FOR HIS GLORY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF DEL PASO, et al. 05/27/2026 Hearing on Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in Department 8D

Analysis

In California each party to a lawsuit bears their own attorney fees, outside of a specific statutory or contractual basis for fee recovery. (Trope v. Katz (1995) 11 Cal.4th 274, 278; Code Civ. Proc., § 1021; Civ. Code, § 1717.)[1] Jones has not alleged any statutory authority or contractual basis for recovery of attorney fees. The Written Agreement that Jones attached to her Declaration contains no express provision for attorney fees. While Jones asserts in her Opposition that she may obtain counsel during the course of litigation, Jones fails to address Defendants’ argument that the Complaint fails to identify any basis for the award of attorney’s fees in this matter. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4.)

Accordingly, based on the allegations as currently pled, Defendants’ motion to strike is GRANTED.

The Court grants leave to amend. “[L]eave to amend is liberally allowed as a matter of fairness, unless the complaint shows on its face that it is incapable of amendment.” (City of Stockton v. Super. Ct. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 730, 747.)

Plaintiffs may file and serve an Amended Complaint no later than June 26, 2026. As noted above, First Baptist may only file and serve an Amended Complaint through licensed counsel.

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.)

[1] The Court notes that self-represented parties do not “incur” attorney “fees” and will

not usually be allowed to claim them as litigation costs. (Trope, supra, at p. 280.)