ZIEGLER, et al. vs DEAN, et al.

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 be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

***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 28 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8C 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 Jordan Zeigler’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for prejudgment claim and delivery against Defendant Shanon Lea Dean (“Defendant”) is ruled upon as follows.

Background

On September 12, 2025, Plaintiff filed a complaint for preliminary injunction against Defendant.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021736: ZIEGLER, et al. vs DEAN, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Prejudgment Claim and Delivery in Department 8C

On September 18, 2026, Plaintiff filed his operative first amended complaint alleging causes of action for conversion and fraud against Defendant. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant took numerous items of personal property belong to Defendant after they ended a long-term dating relationship during which they were co-habitants.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant will not return his items, that she has already sold or disposed of some items, and that the remaining items are in imminent risk of sale, transfer, concealment, or permanent loss.

Plaintiff brings the instant motion for prejudgment claim and delivery and seeks the return of the Personal Property Items to his possession until the trial on this action.

There is no trial date set in this action.

Defendant opposes the motion.

Plaintiff additionally filed a supplemental declaration on April 13, 2026. The Court, in its discretion, will not consider Plaintiff’s late-filed supplemental papers.

Facts

Plaintiff avers that he was in a dating relationship with Plaintiff from approximately late 2017 through July 2025. Plaintiff avers that they were never married and never entered into any agreement, written or oral, to share ownership of personal property. (Decl. Zeigler, ¶ 3.)

Plaintiff asserts that in July 2025, while he was out of state on a family vacation, Defendant placed blue tape over the security camera lenses at his residence and removed substantial quantities of his personal property without his knowledge or consent. (Decl. Zeigler, ¶ 7.)

Plaintiff avers that the personal property items identified in Exhibit A to his Declaration the “Personal Property Items”) are owned solely by Plaintiff in Plaintiff’s individual capacity, and that none of the Personal Property Items were gifted, transferred, or conveyed to Defendant, either expressly or impliedly. (Decl. Zeigler, ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff also avers that each of the Personal Property Items was purchased by Plaintiff. (Decl. Zeigler, ¶ 5.) Plaintiff submits to the Court receipts, invoices, and order confirmations for the Personal Property Items to provide proof of his purchases. (Id. at Ex. B.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant did not contribute financially to the purchase of any of the personal Property Items. (Decl. Zeigler, ¶ 6.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021736: ZIEGLER, et al. vs DEAN, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Prejudgment Claim and Delivery in Department 8C

Plaintiff further explains that during Defendant’s move-out, she also removed her own personal belongings, including furniture, clothing, personal effects, and items she personally owned prior to the relationship, and that this motion does not seek return of any property belonging to Defendant. (Decl. Zeigler, ¶ 9.)

Plaintiff states that Defendant refuses to return the Personal Property Items and that she has admitted that certain of the items have been sold or given away. (Decl. Zeigler, ¶¶ 13-16.)

Defendant avers that during the time she and Plaintiff cohabited, they “jointly used household furnishings and personal property.” (Decl. Dean, ¶ 2.) Defendant avers that during the relationship, she was “primarily responsible for household management and daily domestic operations. In addition, during the periods the children were in our care pursuant to the shared custody arrangement, I provided substantial caregiving support, including supervision, transportation, educational coordination, medical coordination, and organization of household systems.” (Decl. Dean, ¶ 3.)

Defendant avers:

When I moved out of the Sacramento residence while Plaintiff was traveling, I removed personal and household items sufficient to establish my separate residence. These included personal belongings, work- related equipment, furnishings from my office and bedroom areas, tools, and other household items reasonably necessary to establish my separate residence.

(Decl. Dean, ¶ 5.)

Defendant further states that she did not “hide, destroy, sell, or transfer” the Personal Property Items nor attempted to conceal property from the Court. (Decl. Dean, ¶¶ 6-7.)

Legal Standard

California's claim and delivery law authorizes the issuance of a prejudgment writ of possession for specific personal property. The writ can be ordered after a hearing if the moving party establishes the probable validity of their claim to possession of the property, provides an undertaking, and establishes probable cause to believe that the property is located where it is alleged to be. (Code Civ. Proc. § 512.060.) The main procedural requirements are to show that the claim of right to possession “is probably valid” (Code Civ. Proc. 512.040(b)) and to post a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021736: ZIEGLER, et al. vs DEAN, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Prejudgment Claim and Delivery in Department 8C

bond (Code Civ. Proc. 515.010). Thus, to grant a writ of possession, the Court must find that Plaintiff’s claim has probable validity, which means that it is more likely than not that Plaintiff will obtain judgment on his claim to possession of the Personal Property Items. The remedy is available in any action in which a plaintiff asserts a present right to the possession of personal property (Ananda Church of Self-Realization v. Massachusetts Bay Insurance Co. (2002) 95 Cal. App. 4th 1273, 1281-1282), if immediate possession of the personal property is important to the plaintiff.

Discussion

Plaintiff has presented proof that he purchased the Personal Property Items at issue, as indicated in the fact section above. (See Decl. Zeigler, ¶¶ 4-5 and Exhibit B.)

Defendant avers that Plaintiff and Defendant jointly used the Personal Property Items and that during her relationship with Plaintiff she was primarily responsible for household management and daily domestic operations, however she evidences no agreement that between the parties as to an exchange of her services for ownership interest in any of the items at issue.

As explained by the California Supreme Court in Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 665:

We take this opportunity to declare the principles which should govern distribution of property acquired in a nonmarital relationship.

We conclude: The provisions of the Family Law Act do not govern the distribution of property acquired during a nonmarital relationship; such a relationship remains subject solely to judicial decision. (2) The courts should enforce express contracts between nonmarital partners except to the extent that the contract is explicitly founded on the consideration of meretricious sexual services. (3) In the absence of an express contract, the courts should inquire into the conduct of the parties to determine whether that conduct demonstrates an implied contract, agreement of partnership or joint venture, or some other tacit understanding between the parties. The courts may also employ the doctrine of quantum meruit, or equitable remedies such as constructive or resulting trusts, when warranted by the facts of the case.

(Id.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV021736: ZIEGLER, et al. vs DEAN, et al. 04/20/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other for Prejudgment Claim and Delivery in Department 8C

While Defendant argues in her opposition that “[o]wnership and possessory rights are actively disputed,” it does not appear to the Court that the facts relating to the ownership of the Personal Property Items are disputed. Defendant’s only evidence submitted to the Court is her own declaration. In Defendant’s declaration, she does not dispute that Plaintiff purchased each of the Personal Property items. Defendant does not claim that any of the Personal Property Items were gifted to her. Defendant does not claim that there was an agreement, express or implied between Plaintiff and Defendant as to the ownership interest in the Personal Property Items.

Defendant does not deny that she took possession of the Personal Property Items, nor does she state that she was given permission by Plaintiff to take possession of the items. The facts presented on this motion do not support the probable validity of an ownership interest claim in the Personal Property Items for Defendant.

Disposition

Plaintiff’s application for writ of possession of the Personal Property Items is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s showing is sufficient under Code of Civil Procedure section 512.060 to establish the probable validity of his claim to possession of the Personal Property Items.

As the record does not establish any ownership interest on the Personal Property Items by Defendant, Plaintiff is not required to file an undertaking.

Plaintiff is also entitled to a turn over order. (Code Civ. Proc. § 512.070.) With a writ of possession, the Court may also issue an order directing the defendant to transfer possession of the property to the plaintiff. The order must contain a notice to the defendant that failure to comply with the order may subject the defendant to being held in contempt of court. (Code Civ. Proc. § 512.070.) This code section makes clear the court has power to direct the defendant to cooperate; the turnover order is not in lieu of the writ but rather in addition to or in aid of the writ thereby allowing the plaintiff to select a less expensive means of obtaining possession. (See JC Form No. CD-120.)

No later than April 27, 2026, Plaintiff shall submit an order on the mandatory Judicial Council form for the Court's signature.

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.)