ALTIERI-ORTIZ vs ZAGORENKO, et al.

25CV027697: ALTIERI-ORTIZ vs ZAGORENKO, et al. 05/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Please take notice, Department 54 has moved to Department 16C at the Tani G. Cantil- Sakauye Courthouse. The new courthouse is located at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Olga Zagorenko’s (“Cross-Complainant”) application for a preliminary injunction is DENIED as follows.

Background

This action concerns the real property located at 7801 Law Lane, Loomis, California (the “Property”).

In pro per Plaintiff Maria Luz Altieri-Ortiz (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action on November 17, 2025. Plaintiff alleges in the operative Verified First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) that ownership of the Property was wrongfully transferred from her family, and that Cross-Complainant is now improperly attempting to show and sell the Property while related litigation is pending.[1]

Cross-Complainant demurred to the FAC, which is scheduled for hearing on November 17, 2026. Cross-Complainant also filed a Cross-Complaint (“CC”) against Plaintiff on April 10, 2026, in which she alleges causes of action for slander of title, defamation, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and injunctive relief.

In essence, Cross-Complainant alleges in the CC that the Property was lawfully acquired by her and her family members through duly recorded grant deeds, Plaintiff has no ownership (or other legal/equitable) interest in the Property, and that despite having no legal interest in the Property, Plaintiff has engaged in a continuous campaign of interference designed to prevent Cross-Complainant’s lawful sale of the Property.

25CV027697: ALTIERI-ORTIZ vs ZAGORENKO, et al. 05/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 16C

On April 27, 2026, Cross-Complainant filed an Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction (“Ex Parte Application”) in connection with the CC, seeking an order restraining Plaintiff from engaging in the following acts:

1) Contacting, directly or indirectly, any real estate agents, brokers, prospective buyers, escrow agents, or any other third parties involved in or reasonably expected to participate in the marketing, sale, or purchase of the Law Lane Property, for the purpose of interfering with such transaction, including but not limited to representing that Cross-Complainant lacks authority to sell the Law Lane Property, making allegations that Cross-Complainant engaged in fraud or is under investigation by governmental agencies, or making statements regarding the condition, title, or marketability of the Law Lane Property;

2) Threatening to initiate legal action against any person or entity involved in the marketing, sale, or purchase of the Law Lane Property for the purpose of interfering with such transaction;

3) Publishing or disseminating statements, including via social media, regarding (i) the ownership, title, condition, or sale of the Law Lane Property, or (ii) Cross-Complainant, including but not limited to statements that Cross-Complainant engaged in fraud or is under investigation by governmental agencies, for the purpose of interfering with the marketing, sale, or purchase of the Law Lane Property.

(Ex Parte Appl. 6:5-23.)

On April 29, 2026, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause on the Ex Parte Application, setting a briefing schedule and scheduling the matter for hearing on May 21, 2026.

Discussion

Cross-Complainant moves for the stated relief, arguing:

Cross-Complainant will suffer immediate and irreparable harm, including continued interference by [Plaintiff] with the marketing and sale of [the Property], disruption of pending

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV027697: ALTIERI-ORTIZ vs ZAGORENKO, et al. 05/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 16C

and prospective transactions, damage to Cross- Complainant’s business relationships with real estate professionals and prospective buyers, and harm to her professional reputation, before the matter can be [tried], and that interim relief is necessary to preserve the status quo.

(Ex Parte Appl. 2:5-11.) Cross-Complainant argues that she “cannot meaningfully market or sell the [P]roperty absent court intervention[,]” and that “[t]hese harms cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages, as they involve lost market opportunities, interference with real property transactions, and reputational harm that is difficult to quantify.” (Id. at 4:21-25.)

Plaintiff opposes the Ex Parte Application, rejoining, inter alia, that

To grant [the requested injunctive relief] by not permitting [Plaintiff] to inform the public about all litigation and provide cases that are public on [Cross-Complainant] and others for their trust and deed fraud schemes would be irresponsible and dangerous for the public to not know as we ethically and legally believe that allowing the public to know about all litigation and all crimes surrounding our Alteiri family trusts and criminal federal, state and local agencies . . . would only allow [Cross-Complainant] and her associates in her deed schemes in Placer and Sacramento Counties to continue and involve innocent parties that seems to not be ethical for a court to permit while in litigation and investigations are ongoing . . . .

(Opp’n 6:14-24.)

“As its name suggests, a preliminary injunction is an order that is sought by a [party] prior to a full adjudication of the merits of its claim. [Citation.]” (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554.) “The purpose of such an order ‘is to preserve the status quo until a final determination following a trial.’ [Citation.] It ‘does not constitute a final adjudication of the controversy.’ [Citation.]” (Costa Mesa City Employees Ass’n v. City of Costa Mesa (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 298, 305.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV027697: ALTIERI-ORTIZ vs ZAGORENKO, et al. 05/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 16C

“To obtain a preliminary injunction, [the moving party] 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. [Citation.]” (White, supra, 30 Cal.4th at 554; see generally Code Civ. Proc., § 526, 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”].) “‘[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.) Similarly, “if the [moving party] may be fully compensated by the payment of damages in the event he prevails, then preliminary injunctive relief should be denied.” (Tahoe Keys Property Owners’ Ass’n v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1459, 1471 [stating “[t]he showing of potential harm that a plaintiff must make in support of a request for preliminary injunctive relief may be expressed in various linguistic formulations, such as the inadequacy of legal remedies or the threat of irreparable injury [citations], but whatever the choice of words it is clear that a plaintiff must make [a] showing which would support the exercise of the rather extraordinary power to restrain the defendant’s actions prior to a trial on the merits”].)

“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 nonissuance of the injunction.’ [Citation.]” (Costa Mesa City Employees Assn., supra, 209 Cal.App.4th at 306.)

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.)

Here, the Court finds that Cross-Complainant has not shown an entitlement to a preliminary injunction.

First, Cross-Complainant has not shown that a legal remedy on her Cross-Complaint would be inadequate, i.e., that monetary damages would not “afford adequate relief or that it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of damages,” especially where, as here, Cross-Complainant has not shown that Plaintiff is insolvent. (Pacific Decision Sciences Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1110; see also

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV027697: ALTIERI-ORTIZ vs ZAGORENKO, et al. 05/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 16C

West Coast Construction Co. v. Oceano Sanitary District (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 693, 700 [discussing the principle that “the asserted insolvency of the [non-moving party] is a proper matter for the court’s consideration” in deciding whether damages provide an adequate remedy].)

Moreover, the requested injunctive relief amounts to a “prior restraint” of speech, and “injunctive relief is rarely granted to restrain speech or publication.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2025 Update) ¶ 9:708 [citing cases].)

“The right to free speech is ... one of the cornerstones of our society,” and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and under an “even broader” provision of the California Constitution. [Citations.] An injunction that forbids a citizen from speaking in advance of the time the communication is to occur is known as a “prior restraint.” [Citations.] A prior restraint is “‘the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.’” [Citations.] Prior restraints are highly disfavored and presumptively violate the First Amendment. [Citations.] This is true even when the speech is expected to be of the type that is not constitutionally protected. [Citation.]

To establish a valid prior restraint under the federal Constitution, a proponent has a heavy burden to show the countervailing interest is compelling, the prior restraint is necessary and would be effective in promoting this interest, and less extreme measures are unavailable. [Citations.] Further, any permissible order “must be couched in the narrowest terms that will accomplish the pin-pointed objective permitted by constitutional mandate and the essential needs of the public order....” [Citation.]

(Evans v. Evans (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1166-1167.)

“An order prohibiting a party from making . . . false statements is a class type of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV027697: ALTIERI-ORTIZ vs ZAGORENKO, et al. 05/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 16C

unconstitutional prior restraint.” (Id. at p. 1167-1168.) “While [a party] may be held responsible for abusing his right to speak freely in a subsequent tort action, he has the initial right to speak freely without censorship.” (Ibid. [internal quotation marks and citation omitted].)

Cross-Complainant’s moving papers simply do not meet the referenced standards required to restrain Plaintiff’s speech, even if her speech ultimately results in the award of damages in Cross-Complainant’s favor.

For the stated reasons, Cross-Complainant’s application for a preliminary injunction is denied and the temporary restraining order is discharged.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] The related action is a Petition to Invalidate Trust Based on Undue Influence and for Damages for Elder Abuse filed by Plaintiff against Respondent Robert Gordon Nielsen, as an individual and trustee, titled Altieri-Ortiz v. Nielsen, Sacramento County Superior Court Case No. 23CV010116. After the Court granted summary judgment in Respondent’s favor, judgment was entered against Plaintiff on November 7, 2025. A motion for reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment ruling is scheduled for hearing on May 27, 2026. A motion to vacate the summary judgment order is scheduled for hearing on January 4, 2027.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV027697: ALTIERI-ORTIZ vs ZAGORENKO, et al. 05/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 16C

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 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. 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 forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.