Estate of Ojayland Brown, Sr.

23PR000792: ESTATE OF: OJAYLAND BROWN, SR. - SR. 09/17/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for summary judgment in Department 129

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION FILED: 5/15/25

RE: Estate of Ojayland Brown, Sr., 11/3/2018, intestate

MOVING PARTY: Administrator Ojayland Brown, Jr. Atty: Peter Cianchetta, (916) 685-3662

RESPONDING PARTY: Jason Sigman and HIGH TEK USA, Inc. Atty: Jacob Smith, (916) 933-7511

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.

23PR000792: ESTATE OF: OJAYLAND BROWN, SR. - SR. 09/17/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for summary judgment 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 Background Movant Ojayland Brown Jr.’s (“Movant”) Motion for Summary Judgement is ruled on as follows.

On July 13, 2023, Movant petitioned this Court for Letters of Administration, which was granted. Letters were issued on August 25, 2023.

On February 6, 2025, Responding Parties Jason Sigman and HIGH TEK USA, Inc. (“Respondents”) filed a Petition for Order Directing Transfer of Property, claiming Decedent Ojayland Brown, Sr. embezzled funds from Respondent HIGH TEK USA, Inc. during his lifetime.

On May 15, 2025, Movant filed this Motion for Summary Judgment to Respondents’ petition. Movant maintains summary judgment is appropriate because Respondents’ claims in the petition are time barred under both Louisiana and California law. Respondents oppose.

Legal Standard

In evaluating a motion for summary judgment or adjudication, the Court engages in a three-step process. First, the Court identifies the issues framed by the pleadings. The pleadings define the scope of the issues on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (FPI Dev. Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 367, 381-382.) Because a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication is limited to the issues raised by the pleadings (Lewis v. Chevron (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 690, 694), all evidence submitted in support of or in opposition to the motion must be addressed to the claims and defenses raised in the pleadings.

The Court cannot consider an unpled issue in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication. (Roth v. Rhodes (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 530, 541.) The papers filed in response to a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not create issues outside the pleadings and are not a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23PR000792: ESTATE OF: OJAYLAND BROWN, SR. - SR. 09/17/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for summary judgment in Department 129

substitute for an amendment to the pleadings. (Tsemetzin v. Coast Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 1334, 1342.) Indeed, it has often been noted that '[i]t would be patently unfair to allow plaintiffs to defeat [defendant’s] summary judgment motion by allowing them to present a “moving target” unbounded by the pleadings.” (Melican v. Regents of University of California, (2007) 151 Cal. App. 4th 168, 176-177.) Next, the Court must determine whether the moving party has met its burden.

A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication bears the burden of persuasion that one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850, quoting Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p)(2).) A defendant is not required to conclusively negate one or more elements of the plaintiff’s cause of action. (Saelzer v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 780-781).

Rather, to meet its burden, the defendant is required to show only that the plaintiff cannot prove an element of its cause of action, i.e., that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence necessary to show this element. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 853-855.) Further, the initial burden requires a showing that the plaintiff “could not prevail on any theory raised by the pleadings.” (Hawkins v. Wilton (2006) 144 Cal. App. 4th 936, 939-940.) At the same time, a defendant cannot shift the burden to the plaintiff simply by suggesting the possibility that the plaintiff cannot prove its case; a moving defendant must still make 'an affirmative showing' in support of its motion. (See Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 854-855 n.23; Addy v.

Bliss & Glennon (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 205, 214.) Once the moving party has met its burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a material factual issue exists as to the cause of action alleged or a defense to it. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c(p); See generally Bush v. Parents Without Partners (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 322, 326-327.) Finally, the Court reminds the parties of the “Golden Rule” of summary judgment/adjudication: “If it is not set forth in the separate statement, it does not exist.” (See, Zimmerman, Rosenfeld v.

Larson (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1477 [italics in original].) Moreover, according to Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, a moving party’s inclusion of facts in its separate statement effectively concedes each fact’s “materiality,” whether intended or not, and if there is a triable dispute relating to any one of these facts, the motion must be denied. (Id. at 252 [citing Weil & Brown, Civil Procedure Before Trial, Ch.10:95.1].) In ruling on the motion, the Court must consider the evidence and inferences reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 843.)

Movant’s Request for Judicial Notice is opposed and denied. Movant did not attach the exhibits containing the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure sections 422, 3492, and 3446.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23PR000792: ESTATE OF: OJAYLAND BROWN, SR. - SR. 09/17/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for summary judgment in Department 129

Respondents’ objection to the declaration of Peter Cianchetta is overruled.

Discussion

Defendant sets forth the following undisputed material facts (“UMFs”) in support of its motion: 1. “Ojayland Brown Sr. and Jason Sigman entered into a partnership in 2005 and created HITECH USA, Inc. in Louisiana.

2. Ojayland Brown Sr. died on November 3, 2018.

3. Decedent’s accused actions meets the definition of Conversion according to Louisiana Law and California Law.

4. High Tek Inc. and Jason Sigman’s petition clearly plead the tort of Conversion on the face of his Petition.

5. On December 31, 2018, Jason Sigman and HITECH USA, Inc. had knowledge of the allegation of Conversion against Decedent.

6. HITECH USA, Inc. and Jason Sigman did not file a petition for probate or a complaint for fraud within one year of Ojayland Brown Sr. Brown Sr.’s [sic] death.

7. In Louisiana Conversion is not a “Personal Action.” In Louisiana “A personal action is one brought to enforce an obligation against the obligor, personally and independently of the property which he may own, claim, or possess.” 8. At the time of the Ojayland Brown Sr. death, dialectical actions a one-year statute of limitations.

9. In Louisiana a Liberative prescription is a mode of barring of actions as a result of inaction for a period of time.” Based on the above UMFs, Movant contends that the statute of limitations under both Louisiana and California law render the petition time-barred. The Court finds that Movant failed to meet his initial burden as to UMF 5. Upon review of Movant’s cited evidence, the Court is unclear whether the cited evidence actually supports the UMF that Respondents “had knowledge” of the allegation of conversion “on December 31, 2018.” Citation to the evidence in support of the position that a fact is controverted must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line number. (CRC, rule 3.1350(f).)

Movant’s citation contains no such reference to page or line numbers. Thus, the Court finds this UMF is unsupported by Movant’s evidence. As discussed earlier, under Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, a moving party’s inclusion of facts in its separate statement effectively concedes each fact’s “materiality,” whether intended or not. The motion is denied on this basis.

The Court finds that Movant also failed to meet his initial burden as to UMFs 7-9. Movant’s supporting evidence for each UMF cites only to Requests for Judicial Notice Numbers 1-3, respectively. However, because Movant did not attach the documents for which judicial notice is sought, and Respondents objected on this basis, the Court did not consider any alleged exhibits

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23PR000792: ESTATE OF: OJAYLAND BROWN, SR. - SR. 09/17/2025 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for summary judgment in Department 129

that should have been attached. Movant did not cite to any other evidence to support UMFs 7-9. Thus, the motion is further denied on this additional basis.

Because the Court finds Movant did not meet his initial burden, 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.)