Cheryl Pocock vs. Darrel Cowan

34-2018-00243344-CU-PO-GDS: Cheryl Pocock vs. Darrel Cowan 11/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to file Amended Complaint in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Moving parties Phoebe Haines, Nicole Haines, and Brittni Haines’ (collectively, “Moving Parties”) motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint (“1AC”) is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

Plaintiffs Cheryl Pocock, Hannah Philpott, Sarah Philpott, Jason Jaffe, Robert Jaffe, and Kenneth Haines, Jr., by and through his Guardian ad Litem Richard L. Manford filed this action for wrongful death and negligence against defendants Darrel Cowan and Matheson Postal Services, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) on October 26, 2018.

On May 11, 2022, defendant Matheson Postal Services, Inc. filed a Notice of Bankruptcy and Automatic Stay.

On June 12, 2025, the stay as to defendant Matheson Postal Services, Inc. was lifted.

Plaintiffs Cheryl Pocock, Jason Jaffe, and Robert Jaffe reached a settlement with Defendants. Plaintiffs Hannah Philpott, Sarah Philpott, and Kenneth Haines, Jr., by and through his Guardian ad Litem Richard L. Manford, were not part of the settlement agreement.

This motion arises from the recent and unexpected death of Kenneth Haines, Jr. (“Decedent”) on March 17, 2025, and Defendants subsequent refusal to honor their agreement to settle Decedent’s negligence claim for $3.4 million.

Moving Parties contend that 10 days prior to Decedent’s death, Defendants orally agreed to the settlement, and Defendants’ counsel sent an email to Decedent’s counsel on March 17, 2025, attaching the settlement agreement. Unfortunately, four hours later Decedent passed away before he could sign the agreement. Defendants then asserted Decedent’s claim was extinguished by his death.

Moving Parties assert that Decedent’s death was directly and proximately caused by the severe physical and emotional injuries that he sustained in the subject accident. Namely, that Decedent began to use drugs as a coping mechanism to deal with the guilt of being the sole survivor of the accident, which ultimately led to his overdose and death.

Moving Parties now seek leave to add three new causes of action. Specifically, Moving Parties seek an order to (1) allow Phoebe Haines, as successor-in-interest of the estate of Decedent, to commence a second survival cause of action for negligence; (2) allow Phoebe Haines, as successor-in-interest of the estate of Decedent to commence a third cause of action for breach of contract for Defendants’ violation of their agreement to

34-2018-00243344-CU-PO-GDS: Cheryl Pocock vs. Darrel Cowan 11/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to file Amended Complaint in Department 54

settle Decedent’s claim for damages; and (3) allow Nicole Haines, Phoebe Haines, and Brittni Haines, as the wife and daughters of the Decedent, respectively, to commence a fourth cause of action for wrongful death. In sum, this would change Decedent’s second cause of action for negligence into a survival cause of action, add a third cause of action for breach of contract, and add a fourth cause of action for wrongful death.

In addition, Plaintiffs’ proposed 1AC changes the caption and introductory paragraph to remove references to Decedent and his Guardian ad Litem Richard L. Manford, and to add the new plaintiffs, Phoebe Haines, individually and as successor-in-Interest of the estate of Decedent, Nicole Haines, and Brittni Haines.

On July 28, 2025, the Court ordered that Phoebe Haines be substituted as a party plaintiff in place of Decedent.

Moving Parties contend these amendments are necessary and proper due to Decedent’s unexpected and recent passing and Defendants’ subsequent refusal to honor the settlement agreement. (Declaration of Anthony M. Ontiveros (“Ontiveros Decl.”), ¶¶ 5-7.) Moving Parties further assert that a request was not made earlier because this action was automatically stayed because Defendant Matheson Postal Services, Inc. was in bankruptcy, and the stay was not lifted until June 11, 2025. (Ontiveros Decl., ¶ 9.)

It is well established that California courts have a policy of great liberality in allowing amendments at any stage of the proceeding so as to dispose of cases upon their substantial merits where the authorization does not prejudice the substantial rights of others. (Board of Trustees v. Super. Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.) Moreover, Section 473 of the Code of Civil Procedure authorizes the trial court, in its discretion, to allow amendments in furtherance of justice. The policy of great liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of the proceeding has been declared by our courts. (Klopstock v.

Superior Court (1941) 17 Cal.2d 13, 19-20.) Indeed, it is a rare case in which a court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his or her pleading so that he or she may properly present his or her case. Thus, absent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings will prevail. (Board of Trustees v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1154, 1163.)

Having received no opposition, the motion is GRANTED.

Moving parties may file and serve the 1AC no later than December 2, 2025.

Defendants may file and serve a response within 30 days of service of the 1AC, 35 days if served by mail.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00243344-CU-PO-GDS: Cheryl Pocock vs. Darrel Cowan 11/18/2025 Hearing on Motion for Leave to file Amended Complaint in Department 54

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 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 54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. 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.

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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.