STRATTON vs TILE LIQUIDATORS FRANCHISOR, LLC

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

26CV000102: STRATTON vs TILE LIQUIDATORS FRANCHISOR, LLC 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend to File Second Amended Complaint in Department 8D

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. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION***

Plaintiff in pro per Victory Stratton’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint (“2AC”) is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

This is an action arising from the alleged unlawful sale of an unregistered franchise business to Plaintiff by defendant Tile Liquidators Franchisor, LLC (“Defendant”). Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendant on January 5, 2026. Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint on January 21, 2026.

Plaintiff filed a revised Memorandum of Points and Authorities on May 5, 2026, wherein Plaintiff states that such Memorandum supersedes the Memorandum filed on March 3, 2026, in connection with this motion.

Plaintiff seeks leave to file a 2AC for the following reasons:

(1) to add Disney7 LLC, Andrew Disney, Kerri Disney, Andrew Disney, and Chris Nezbeth as defendants, including related allegations as to each defendant’s relationship to other defendants; (2) to add allegations that Plaintiff seeks attachment of assets transferred after notice of Plaintiff’s claims and subject to avoidance under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act; (3) to add allegations concerning post-notice transfers; (4) to add allegations concerning Disney7 LLC’s ownership interest in the entity Palm Tile & Stone Gallery, operation of the entity Palm Design & Surface under a fictitious business name, and a May 15, 2024, Franchise Disclosure Document; (5) to add allegations concerning the entities D7 Products and Palm Design & Surfaces, and Plaintiff’s contention that Disney7 LLC operated as a supplier for D7 Products. (6) to add allegations concerning Defendant’s discovery response stating there were no

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV000102: STRATTON vs TILE LIQUIDATORS FRANCHISOR, LLC 06/10/2026 Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend to File Second Amended Complaint in Department 8D

other affiliates and Plaintiff’s contention that Defendant did not identify Disney7 LLC; (7) to add allegations concerning Disney7 LLC’s shared principal address with Defendant; (8) to add allegations concerning Disney7 LLC’s alleged liability as an undisclosed affiliate and supplier under the California Franchise Investment Law; (9) to add allegations concerning Disney7 LLC’s alleged liability for recission and restitution; (10) to add a sixth cause of action for fraudulent transfer against Doug Disney, Disney7 LLC, Kerri Disney, and Andrew Disney; and (11) to add to her prayer for relief requests seeking avoidance of transfers of membership interests in Disney7 LLC, judgment against transferees to the extent of the membership interests each received, and attachment of Disney7 LLC membership interests held by Kerri Disney and Andrew Disney.

(Stratton Supplemental Decl., ¶¶ 7(a)-(o).) Plaintiff seeks leave to file a 2AC based on evidence discovered after her original March 3, 2026 motion for leave to amend was filed, after Plaintiff discovered facts supporting the amendments in April and May 2026 through investigation of public records and Defendant’s discovery responses, among other records. (See id. at ¶ 10.) No trial date has been set. (Id. at ¶ 13.)

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.) The Court also notes that the motion is unopposed. The Court construes Defendant’s lack of opposition as a concession on the merits. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, fn. 4.)

Having received no opposition, Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff may file and serve the proposed 2AC no later than June 20, 2026.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or other notice is required.