In the Matter of: Roxanne Lee Davenport

25PR000172: IN THE MATTER OF: ROXANNE LEE DAVENPORT 10/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 129

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION MOTION FILED: 6/23/25 RE: In re the Matter of the Estate of Roxanne Lee Davenport MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Lorie Ruiz In Pro Per RESPONDING PARTY: Respondents Georgeann Vega

NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative ruling may be downloaded off the court’s website. If the party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the Probate Department at (916) 875-2529 between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing and receive the tentative ruling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.

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 129 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept129 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 3352 9231. 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.

25PR000172: IN THE MATTER OF: ROXANNE LEE DAVENPORT 10/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 129

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.

TENTATIVE RULING Petitioner Lorie Ruiz’s (“Petitioner”) Motion for Preliminary Injunction is UNOPPOSED but DENIED.

Petitioner filed a Petition for Letters of Administration on 1/21/25. Letters were issue 2/26/25.

In her motion, Petitioner represents that Respondent Georgeanne Vega is a named beneficiary of certain non-probate assets, three life insurance policies by Royal Neighbors of America, and Security Benefit. Petitioner also represents that Respondent was only a named beneficiary as a conditional gift, for which Respondent was required to relocate and provide care to the decedent’s disabled sister. Petitioner represents that Respondent has not done so. (Motion, pg. 2, lns. 1-2; Declaration of Petitioner, ¶ 2.)

“As its name suggests, a preliminary injunction is an order that is sought by a plaintiff prior to a full adjudication of the merits of its claim[s]. [Citation.]' (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 528, 554.) “The purpose of such an order 'is to preserve the status quo . . . . It 'does not constitute a final adjudication of the controversy.' [Citation.]' (Costa Mesa City Employees Assn v. City of Costa Mesa (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 298, 305.) The discretion of the trial judge to grant a provisional injunction is of course as broad as the discretion to deny it.

'To obtain a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff ordinarily is required to present evidence of the irreparable injury or interim harm that it will suffer if an injunction is not issued pending an adjudication of the merits. (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554 [emphasis added]; see generally Code Civ. Proc. § 426, subd. (a)(2) [a preliminary injunction 'may be granted . . . [w]hen it appears . . . that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce . . . great or irreparable injury . . . to a party to the action].)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25PR000172: IN THE MATTER OF: ROXANNE LEE DAVENPORT 10/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 129

''[T]he extraordinary remedy of injunction' cannot be invoked without showing the likelihood of irreparable harm. [Citation.]' (Intel Corp. v. Hamidi (2003) 30 Cal. 4th 1342, 1352.) The threat of 'irreparable harm' must be imminent. 'An injunction cannot issue in a vacuum based on the proponents' fears about something that may happen in the future.[..i]t must be supported by actual evidence that there is a realistic prospect that the party enjoined intends to engage in the prohibited activity.' (Korean Philadelphia Presbyterian Church v. California Presbytery (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1084.)

'If the threshold requirement of irreparable injury is established, then [the court] must examine two interrelated factors to determine whether . . . a preliminary injunction should be [issued]: '(1) the likelihood that the moving party will ultimately prevail on the merits and (2) the relative interim harm to the parties from issuance or non-issuance of the injunction.' [Citation.]' (Costa Mesa City Employees Assn., supra, 209 Cal.App.4th at 306.) The greater the showing on one factor, the lesser the showing must be on the other. (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 678.) However, a preliminary injunction may not be granted, regardless of the balance of interim harm, unless it is reasonably probable that the moving party will prevail on the merits. (San Francisco Newspaper Printing Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 438, 442.)

The party seeking injunctive relief bears the burden of showing all elements necessary to support issuance of a preliminary injunction. (O'Connell v. Super. Ct. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.)

'The ultimate goal of any test to be used in deciding whether a preliminary injunction should issue is to minimize the harm which an erroneous interim decision may cause.' (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63, 73.)

If the plaintiff fails to satisfy either or both of the two prerequisites (interim harm and likelihood of success on the merits), a trial judge's denial of the request for a preliminary judgment will be upheld. (Cohen v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 40 Cal.3d 277, 287; see King v. Meese (1987) 43 Cal.3d 1217, 1228, 1235 [balance of harms favored defendants and plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on merits]; Sundance Saloon v. San Diego (1989) 213 Cal. App.3d 807, 811, 812; Scates v. Rydingsword (1991) 229 Cal. App.3d 1085, 1094.)

Here, it is unclear whether Petitioner will succeed on the merits. Petitioner has not provided evidence of the conditional nature of the beneficiary designation (in the form of trust or estate documentation, a holographic will, verbal contract, etc.) or how she is likely to succeed in demonstrating the policy issuers are subject to withholding these funds if the condition is not met. Petitioner states only that she and her siblings were “made aware” of the “condition” that Respondent relocate to provide care to decedent’s sister in order to receive the life policies.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25PR000172: IN THE MATTER OF: ROXANNE LEE DAVENPORT 10/15/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 129

(Delcaration, ¶ 2.) Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated sufficient factual basis that she is likely to succeed on the merits.

The motion is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)