ARG OPERATIONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ANTONIO, et al.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV008474: ARG OPERATIONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ANTONIO, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Leave to File Amended Answer to Complaint in Department 16D

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 53 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 16D 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. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION. PARTIES MAY CONTINUE TO APPEAR REMOTELY IN DEPARTMENT 16D UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ORDERED OTHERWISE. ***

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendant Monina Antonio’s motion for leave to file an amended answer is granted.

In this action, Plaintiff ARG Operations, LLC alleges causes of action for partition and equitable accounting against Defendant and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Defendant now seeks leave to file an amended answer to directly deny allegations of ownership by Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest and to add an affirmative defense of illegality regarding the subject grant deed upon which Plaintiff claims an ownership interest.

Trial is set for June 16, 2026.

“Trial courts are vested with the discretion to allow amendments in the furtherance of justice…That Trial courts are to liberally permit such amendments, at any stage of the proceeding, has been established policy in this state…resting on the fundamental policy that cases should be decided on the merits.” (Hirsa v Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 488-489.) Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties in the same lawsuit. Thus, the court’s discretion will usually be exercised liberally to permit amendment of the pleadings.

See Nestle v. Santa Monica (1972) 6 Cal.3d 920,939; Mabie v. Hyatt (1998) 61 Cal. App.4th 581, 596. A trial court has discretion to deny a motion for leave to amend where “inexcusable delay and probable prejudice” are shown. (Magpali v. Farmers Group (1998) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 487-488 [leave to amend made on the eve of trial properly denied in the trial court’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV008474: ARG OPERATIONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ANTONIO, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Leave to File Amended Answer to Complaint in Department 16D

discretion where the new cause of action would have greatly expanded the case after the “trial date was set, the jury [was] about to be impaneled, counsel, the parties, the trial court, and the witnesses [had] blocked the time, and the only way to avoid prejudice to the opposing party is to continue the trial date to allow further discovery…”].)

Plaintiff opposes the motion on numerous grounds. Plaintiff contends that Defendant unreasonably delayed because the amendment is based on facts Defendant has known since 2005, because the amendment would result in substantial prejudice as it would expand the scope and nature of the action set to commence trial in less than two weeks, and because the proposed amendments are futile.

First, while it may be true that the facts upon which the amendment appear to be based have been in existence since 2005 when Defendant executed a grant deed to Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, Defendant’s counsel declares that he only recently formed a conclusion regarding the claimed validity of that deed after discussing Defendant’s discovery responses in April 2026. (Hyppa Decl. ¶ 4.) Counsel then declares that he did not oppose Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint that was set for hearing on May 14, 2026 because he intended to file an answer to the amended complaint which would include the information now sought to be added to the answer by way of this motion.

Plaintiff withdrew the motion just prior to the hearing date. (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendant then obtained an ex parte order for an OST on May 19, 2026 to allow this motion to be heard. The Court finds that Defendant did not unreasonably delay in seeking the amendment.

Plaintiff next contends that it will be substantially prejudiced by the amendment because it will expand the case from a partition case to a title invalidation matter by claiming that Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest never acquired title. Plaintiff claims that the proposed amended answer will require additional discovery and potential dispositive motion practice. However, Plaintiff fails to set forth any specific discovery that it believes it would actually need to conduct. In absence of such evidence, the Court does not find substantial prejudice will result by the amendment. In any event, to the extent that Plaintiff believes that additional discovery is required and can make such showing in an appropriate motion to continue trial, Plaintiff remains free to seek a continuance of the June 16, 2026 trial date from the Presiding Judge pursuant to Local Rule 1.05.

Lastly, Plaintiff claims that the proposed amended answer is futile and lacks merit. The Court will not consider this challenge to the merits of the proposed pleading on this motion. Generally, the validity of a proposed amendment is generally not considered in deciding whether to grant leave to amend. (California Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 280-281 [disapproved on other grounds in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 24CV008474: ARG OPERATIONS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY vs ANTONIO, et al. 06/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Leave to File Amended Answer to Complaint in Department 16D

Kransco v. American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 390, 407.]) Such challenges to the pleadings are more properly addressed in a demurrer or a motion to strike rather than in an opposition to a motion to amend. It is axiomatic that “the preferable practice would be to permit the amendment and allow the parties to test its legal sufficiency by demurrer, motion for judgment on the pleadings or other appropriate proceedings.” (California Casualty Gen. Ins. Co., supra, 173 Cal.App.3d at 281.) To the extent that Plaintiff desires to challenge the merits of the proposed amended answer, it may do so through an appropriate motion. Again, Plaintiff may seek a continuance from the Presiding Judge in the event it decides it requires additional time to challenge the pleading.

While Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to serve a copy of the signed order granting Defendant’s ex parte application for an OST, the Court, its discretion, will not deny the motion on such basis. The Court notes that Plaintiff was able to timely oppose the motion by the May 26, 2026, deadline set in the Court’s ex parte order.

The motion is granted.

No later than June 8, 2026, Defendant shall separately file and serve the proposed amended answer in the same form as submitted with the motion. The Court will not deem the proposed amended answer filed and served.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.