ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA DISTRICT COUNCIL, INC. vs HARVEST CHURCH ELK GROVE, 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.

26CV005473: ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA DISTRICT COUNCIL, INC. vs HARVEST CHURCH ELK GROVE, et al. 05/27/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Department 8D

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.

***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****

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Assemblies of God, Northern California and Nevada District Council, Inc.’s (the “District”) application for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause re issuance of preliminary injunction against Defendant and Cross- Complainant Harvest Church Elk Grove (“Harvest”) is ruled upon as follows.

I. Overview

The District initiated this action by filing their Complaint on March 4, 2026. On March 17, 2026, the District filed its Verified First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) as well as an Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re Preliminary Injunction (the “District Application”). The District Application was noticed for hearing on March 27, 2026.

On March 24, 2026, Harvest filed its Cross-Complaint as well as an Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re preliminary Injunction (the “Harvest Application”). The Harvest Application was noticed for hearing on March 25, 2026.

On March 25, 2026 this Court held a hearing on the Harvest Application and, after hearing argument from the parties, the Court continued the hearing on the Harvest Application to March 27, 2026 so that it could be heard with the District Application.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV005473: ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA DISTRICT COUNCIL, INC. vs HARVEST CHURCH ELK GROVE, et al. 05/27/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Department 8D

On March 27, 2026 after stipulation from the parties, the Court ordered that the hearing on both the District Application and on the Harvest Application be continued to May 4, 2026. Based on the Parties’ stipulation, the Court further ordered that Harvest shall file its opposition to the District Application by no later than April 17, 2026 and that the District shall file any reply by no later than April 24, 2026.

Thereafter, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing on the District Application to May 27, 2026. Neither party objected to this continuance.

As alleged in the FAC, Harvest is a nonprofit religious corporation organized under California Nonprofit Religious Corporation Law, Corporations Code § 9110 et seq. (FAC ¶ 2.) Harvest is affiliated with the national hierarchical church Assemblies of God, of which the District, also a nonprofit religious corporation, is an intermediate governing body. As alleged in the FAC, Harvest entered into a voluntary cooperative fellowship and affiliation with the General Council of the Assemblies of God (“General Council”) and the District, agreeing to be bound by certain covenants and commitments of those organizations. (Id., at 10.)

The District contends that this action arises from Harvest’s “refusal to comply with its own Constitution and Bylaws and the governing affiliation structure of the Assemblies of God following the termination of its Senior Pastor and one of its Staff Pastor’s ministerial credentials.” (Id., at 9.)

More specifically, the FAC contends that under Harvest’s governing documents a “Senior Pastor must maintain current ministerial credentials with the Assemblies of God. Upon termination of such credentials, the Senior Pastor’s term is immediately terminated.” (Id., at 11.) The FAC further alleges that Jon Smith, who previously served as Senior Pastor, no longer maintains valid Assemblies of God credentials and that Elizabeth Garcia Smith, who previously served as Staff Pastor, also no longer maintains valid Assemblies of God credentials. (Id., at ¶¶ 13, 14.)

Nonetheless, the District alleges, Harvest has “allowed the former credential holders to continue functioning as Senior and Staff Pastor.” (Id., at ¶ 15.) On information and belief, the District alleges that Harvest “has described its pastors as being on a ‘leave of absence’ with them continuing to receive a full salary, continuing to direct staff, meet with the board of directors planning and promoting events, and interacting regularly with congregants.” (Id., at ¶ 16.)

The District further contends that Harvest’s “Bylaws require that applications for membership be examined and recommended by the duly qualified and elected Senior Pastor before Board consideration.” (Id., at ¶ 17.) Harvest “currently lacks a duly credentialed and eligible elected Senior pastor under its governing documents”

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV005473: ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA DISTRICT COUNCIL, INC. vs HARVEST CHURCH ELK GROVE, et al. 05/27/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Department 8D

nonetheless, the District alleges (on information and belief), that Harvest “has initiated or intends to initiate a membership drive and add members to the roster.” (Id., at ¶¶ 18, 20.) Finally, the District alleges that it is informed and believes that Harvest members are being intimidated by defendants, and the former Pastors (Mr. Smith and Ms. Garcia Smith) to discourage any dissent with respect to the current management of Harvest. (Id., at ¶ 19.)

The FAC contends that Harvest’s Constitution provides that, if at any time Harvest encounters a problem (internal or external) which cannot be reasonably and expeditiously resolved by action of the members or the Board of Deacons, Harvest should seek the services and assistance of the District, or General Council, upon request of the Senior Pastor, or a majority of the Board, or upon petition of membership. (Id., at ¶ 25.) Such petition of the membership requires signatures of at least twenty percent of the current active membership of Harvest. (Ibid.) Upon presentation o the District, the District should take appropriate action or undertake to provide necessary services as are available. (Ibid.)

The FAC further alleges that the General Council Bylaws further provides that the District has discretion to provide organizational assistance and, when necessary, revert a church from General Council states to district-affiliated states. (Id., at ¶ 26.)

On or about February 12, 2026, alleges the FAC, the District received a petition for assistance with 70 signatures from members of Harvest Church, which exceeds the 20% threshold under Harvest’s Constitution. (Id., at ¶¶ 28, 29.) In response to the petition, the District reverted Harvest to district affiliated status. (Id., at ¶ 31.) The FAC further alleges that, pursuant to Article Eight, Section Five, C, of its Bylaws, the District Superintendent became the president of the corporation, Harvest’s bylaws were set aside, new bylaws were adopted and a new board was appointed. (Id., at 33.)

The FAC names harvest, and Ana Bencker (“Bencker”) as defendants and brings the following causes of action against them: (1) declaratory relief, (2) temporary restraining order, (3) preliminary injunction and (4) permanent injunction.

The District now makes this Application for an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should issue pending trial in this action and for a temporary restraining order preventing and enjoining Harvest and Bencker from “violating its Bylaws and the Bylaws of the District Council and General Council of the Assemblies of God (‘General Council’).” (Notice of Ex Parte Application at 2:7-9.) The District further:

asks the Court to preserve the status quo pending a hearing on a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV005473: ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA DISTRICT COUNCIL, INC. vs HARVEST CHURCH ELK GROVE, et al. 05/27/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Department 8D

preliminary injunction, which entails prohibiting Defendants from:

1. permitting individuals lacking valid Assemblies of God credentials to act as Senior Pastor or Staff Pastor;

2. representing any such individuals as the lawful Senior or Staff Pastor;

3. processing or approving membership applications absent compliance with its Constitution and Bylaws;

4. altering the official membership roster pending further order of the Court;

5. interfering with Plaintiff’s actions taken pursuant to governing bylaws, including but not limited to Article Four Section Four of Harvest Church Bylaws, and Article Six, Section Four of the General Council Bylaws; and

6. engaging in witness intimidation or harassment.

(Id., at 2:12-21.)[1]

Harvest opposes, arguing that the “District has not shown it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claims and the District concedes it will not suffer any harm, much less irreparable harm.” (Opposition at 4:5-7.)

Based on the circumstances and briefing provided, the Court construes the District’s Application as a motion for preliminary injunction.

II. Legal Standard

“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. [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 Ass’n v. City of Costa Mesa (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 298, 305.)

“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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV005473: ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA DISTRICT COUNCIL, INC. vs HARVEST CHURCH ELK GROVE, et al. 05/27/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Department 8D

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 plaintiff 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 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. Superior Court (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1452, 1481.)

Courts will deny a preliminary injunction unless there is a reasonable probability that the plaintiff will be successful in his or her assertion of rights. (Continental Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, 528.) A preliminary injunction will not be issued simply to prevent the possibility of some remote future injury. Issuing a preliminary injunction based only on a possibility of irreparable harm is inconsistent with the characterization of injunctive relief as an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief. (Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (2008) 555 U.S. 7, 22.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV005473: ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA DISTRICT COUNCIL, INC. vs HARVEST CHURCH ELK GROVE, et al. 05/27/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Department 8D

III.

Discussion

A. Irreparable Injury

In order to issue any preliminary injunction, irreparable harm must be presented. In its moving papers, the District argues that relief “must be granted to prevent irreparable injury to Harvest Church.” (Moving MPA at 14:12-13 [underline added for emphasis].) The District goes on to argue that it seeks “this immediate relief to prevent further degradation of Church governance and uncertainty surrounding Church leadership and intimidation and harassment of Harvest staff and membership.” (Id., at 15:2-4.)

In opposition, Harvest contends that the District has failed to show “that it would suffer any harm, much less any irreparable harm, should this Court deny its request for injunctive relief.” (Opposition at 11:11-14.)

In reply, the District explains:

In its Application, the District considered Harvest’s interests in the balancing of the equities because the bylaws necessarily connect the District to Harvest. The governing documents give the District a responsibility to intervene in Harvest’s interests when the Church encounters problems, as it has in recent months. These mechanisms exist for organizational stability and consistency in ecclesiastical matters of doctrine and polity. In addition, the District must consider harm to Harvest in its calculus. It is a requirement under the balance of the equities. (District Application, p. 19: 1-25.) This consideration is not fatal to the District’s Application. [sic] as Harvest contends. (Harvest Opposition p. 11: 10-20.)

(Reply at 5:1-8.)

The District then goes on to argue that:

If the District’s action is denied, the government will have stripped the District of its authority to exercise religious discipline over churches and ministers. This would be an incalculable loss, not only to the District but to the autonomy of religious organizations of any faith.

(Id., at 5:9-12.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV005473: ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA DISTRICT COUNCIL, INC. vs HARVEST CHURCH ELK GROVE, et al. 05/27/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Department 8D

First, to the extent that the District’s moving papers assert that an injunction must be granted to prevent irreparable injury to Harvest, the District has presented no authority which establishes that a moving party can meet the threshold requirement of irreparable injury by presenting argument and/or facts that the opposing party would be harmed if an injunction is not issued.

Second, to the extent that the District has amended its argument on reply to assert that the District will suffer irreparable injury if its’ request for injunctive relief is not granted, the District failed to raise such an argument in its moving papers thus depriving Harvest the opportunity of responding to that particular argument. Moreover, the District has failed to support this conclusory argument with any evidence. Rather, the District merely provides two sentences which generally assert that the Court’s failure to grant injunctive relief under these circumstances would be an “incalculable loss.” Such conclusory argument is insufficient to meet the District’s burden for preliminary injunctive relief.

The preliminary injunction is thus DENIED as the District has not met its burden to demonstrate that without a preliminary injunction, it will experience irreparable harm.

While the Court need not continue, it does so to demonstrate that even if the District had met its burden to demonstrate irreparable harm through this application, its request for preliminary injunctive relief would still be denied.

B. The District’s Likelihood of Success

In its moving papers, the District generally argues that it “is likely to succeed on the underlying claim based on [Harvest’s] violations of applicable governing documents, the petition by thirty percent of active members to engage District Council pursuant to [Harvest’s] Bylaws, declarations by current and former Church members evidencing a conflict, and the Church’s current status as District-Affiliated.” (Moving Application at 16:17-20.) However, despite its burden of proof in showing all elements necessary to support a preliminary injunction, the District fails entirely to address the requisite elements of any of the causes of action alleged in the FAC. As explained below, the Court concludes that the District has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on any of these causes of action.

In this regard, the Court first addresses Harvest’s argument that the FAC really asserts only a single cause of action for declaratory relief. (Opposition at 8:24-9:5.) The Court agrees with Harvest on this point. Specifically, as mentioned above, the District’s FAC asserts causes of action for (1) Declaratory Relief, (2) Temporary Restraining Order, (3) Preliminary Injunction, and (4) Permanent Injunction. However, injunctive relief is a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV005473: ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA DISTRICT COUNCIL, INC. vs HARVEST CHURCH ELK GROVE, et al. 05/27/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Department 8D

remedy, not a cause of action. (Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 CalApp.4th 41, 65.)

The District’s cause of action for declaratory relief seeks a judicial declaration that:

a. The former Senior Pastor’s term terminated automatically upon loss of credentials;

b. Former Staff Pastor Smith’s term terminated automatically upon loss of credentials;

c. Harvest Church may not permit Jon Smith to function as Senior Pastor;

d. Harvest Church may not process or approve new members absent compliance with its Bylaws;

e. The reversion to Harvest Church as a District Affiliated Church is enforceable;

f. Actions taken in contravention of the Bylaws are void or voidable.

(FAC at ¶ 38.)

To qualify for declaratory relief, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the rights or obligations of a party. (Sweetwater Union High School Dist. v. Julian Union Elementary School Dist. (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 970, 984.) The “actual controversy” element requires an existing present controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties. (Ibid; see also Lee v. Silveira (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 527 [explaining that the “actual controversy” requirement encompasses a “probable future controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the parties” but does not include controversies which are “conjectural, anticipated to occur in the future or an attempt to obtain an advisory opinion from the court”].)

In opposition, Harvest first argues that the District’s FAC seeks ecclesiastical determinations that “a civil court cannot make without violating the First Amendment” (Opposition at 10:1-2.) Harvest next contends that, even if the Court had the authority to weigh in on ecclesiastical decisions of who may minister to the faithful, the District is still

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV005473: ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA DISTRICT COUNCIL, INC. vs HARVEST CHURCH ELK GROVE, et al. 05/27/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Department 8D

unable to establish it is likely to prevail on the merits of its declaratory relief action because there is no live controversy about whether someone may serve as a pastor at Harvest upon termination of their ministerial credentials. (Id., at 10:13-11:9.)

The Court addresses Harvest’s second argument first, as it finds that it is dispositive of the motion before it. In other words, assuming, with out deciding, that the FAC seeks relief which is not barred by the ecclesiastical rules of judicial deference, the Court finds that, for the reasons discussed below, the District has failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of its claim for declaratory relief as it fails to demonstrate there is a live controversy.

In regards to its argument that there is no “live controversy” as to whether or not someone may serve as a pastor after termination of their ministerial credentials, Harvest presents the declaration of Tim Van Gelder, the Chair of the Board of Deacons of Harvest Church, who avers that:

13. On February 7, 2026, the Board advised Rev. Jon Smith and Rev. Elizabeth Garcia-Smith that, in light of the suspension of their ministerial credentials, they may attend Harvest solely as congregants and may not perform any pastoral functions during the pendency of their ecclesiastical appeal of the decision to terminate their ministerial credentials or until further notice.

(Declaration of Tim Van Gelder, ¶ 13.)

Harvest also presents the declaration of Reverand Jon Smith who declares that:

4. I, along with my wife, Rev. Elizabeth Garcia-Smith—whose ministerial credentials were terminated alongside mine—am in the process of appealing that decision through the Fellowship’s ecclesiastical process, which is separate from this proceeding. In all events, since our ministerial credentials were suspended on December 9, 2025, neither I nor Rev. Garcia-Smith has performed any pastoral duties at Harvest, and during the pendency of our ecclesiastical appeal, I will not perform any such duties.

Nor has the Harvest Board asked me to perform any pastoral duties since my ministerial credentials were suspended/terminated. Although we are not currently serving as pastors at Harvest, Rev. Garcia- Smith and I remain members of the congregation and, as such, regularly attend services and functions – but as a member, just like any other member. Sometimes other members still refer to me as “Pastor” or “Reverend,” even though I am not currently performing any pastoral

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV005473: ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA DISTRICT COUNCIL, INC. vs HARVEST CHURCH ELK GROVE, et al. 05/27/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Department 8D

functions during the pendency of my appeal. I am not doing anything to encourage other members to sometimes refer to me by any title, but I also am not surprised. After all, a large majority of Harvest’s membership supported my election years ago as Senior Pastor in the first place. Notwithstanding how some members may personally decide how to refer to me, that does not change the fact that I am not performing any pastoral functions at Harvest during the pendency of my appeal.

(Declaration of Rev. Jon Smith, ¶ 4.)

On reply, the District rejoins that there is a “live controversy regarding who may serve as Harvest’s pastors.” (Reply at 6:19-20.) In this regard, the District points to the declaration of Brenda Lee Cates (a current active member of Harvest Church), submitted with its moving papers, in which Ms. Cates avers, in relevant part, that:

5. The reason(s) why I sought services and assistance from District Council include the following:

a. Since 2024, the financial reports provided to members at the Annual Business Meetings have been incomplete. The church board is the fiduciary of the church, and it is their fiduciary responsibility to not only safeguard the church’s funds but also to provide a reliable and thorough report to the members, according to the bylaws. The board has failed in this fiduciary duty.

b. I have asked the board to provide me with complete reports and an opportunity to ask some questions, but I have not received a response to my request.

c. Recently, discussions have emerged about disaffiliating from the Assemblies of God, and I worry that this could leave the church without accountability and oversight, making it more vulnerable to financial fraud and mismanagement.

d. A significant number of board members have resigned in recent weeks. The high turnover is concerning. The vacancies were replaced by the remaining board members, and it seems that the entire board has become a self-appointed board, without any input from the membership.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV005473: ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA DISTRICT COUNCIL, INC. vs HARVEST CHURCH ELK GROVE, et al. 05/27/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Department 8D

e. I do not trust the current Board—the Board has refused to let district officials meet with the members, and the Board is asking the members to make decisions without giving them a chance to ask questions or be informed.

f. The Board has also failed to cooperate with the district regarding the restrictions that were placed on Jon Smith during his suspension and subsequent defrocking: allowing him to continue to lead the day-to-day operations of the church, lead staff, meet with the board, engage in ministries, and to receive a salary from the church. This is in direct violation of the church’s bylaws.

g. It is clear that the Board intends to re-install Jon Smith as Pastor, despite the fact that his ministerial credentials have been terminated and he does not qualify for the position according to Harvest Church bylaws.

(The District’s Compendium of Exhibits [the “District’s COE”] at Exhibit 10, ¶ 5(a)-(g) [underline in original].)

The District also cites to the declaration of Linda Tolinto-Thomas (an active member of Harvest), also submitted with the District’s moving papers. Ms. Tolinto-Thomas avers, in relevant part:

5. The reason(s) why I sought services and assistance from District Council include the following:

...

c. The Church Board failed to notify the members when it was notified by the Northern California & Nevada District on the credential status of Jon Smith and Elizabeth Garcia-Smith. The Church Board did not call for a membership meeting or provide notice of the decision. The Church Board continues to mislead the congregation, asserting that Jon Smith and Elizabeth Garcia-Smith are still the pastors and leaders of Harvest Church. The Church Board has failed to prevent staff pastors from sharing this misinformation publicly to the church members and attendees.

(The District’s COE at Exhibit 23, ¶ 5(c).)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV005473: ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA DISTRICT COUNCIL, INC. vs HARVEST CHURCH ELK GROVE, et al. 05/27/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Department 8D

After considering the evidence presented by both parties the Court finds that the District has failed to carry its burden of demonstrating a reasonable probability it will prevail on the merits of its claims. Namely, the District’s evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that there is an actual “live controversy” between the parties. In this regard, the District only presents a single declaration from a single Harvest member which makes the conclusory statement that “the Church Board continues to mislead the congregation, asserting that Jon Smith and Elizabeth Garcia-Smith are still the pastors and leaders of Harvest Church.” (Ibid.)

Such a statement does not provide any facts as to who made that misrepresentation on behalf of the board, or when that misrepresentation was made. Moreover, the declarations of Rev. Smith and Mr. Van Gelder contradicts such an averment. Furthermore, Ms. Cates’ declaration is no less conclusory. By way of example Ms. Cates avers that the Board has alleged Rev. Smith to continue to “engage in ministries” but there is no explanation what these alleged acts of “ministries” are. (Id., at Exhibit 10, ¶ 5(f).)

Most importantly, the evidence presented by Harvest in opposition indicate that there is no existing present controversy regarding who may serve as Harvest’s pastors. Both Rev. Smith and the Chair of Harvest’s Board attest that Rev. Smith and Rev. Garcia- Smith are not currently performing any pastoral functions, nor do they intend to, during the pendency of their ecclesiastical appeal of the decision to terminate their ministerial credentials. (Van Gelder Decl., ¶ 13, Smith Decl., ¶ 4.)

While the District’s first cause of action for declaratory relief seeks other judicial declarations beyond the declarations that Harvest may not permit Rev. Smith to function as Senior Pastor, and that the former Senior Pastor’s and Staff Pastor’s term terminated automatically upon loss of credentials, the District presents no other argument that there is a “live controversy” sufficient to satisfy the requirements for a request for declaratory relief.[2] Again, it is the party seeking injunctive relief who bears the burden of showing all elements necessary to support issuance of a preliminary injunction. (O'Connell v. Superior Court, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at p. 1481.)

Accordingly, based on the current submissions to the Court in support of this application/motion, the Court finds that the District has not shown a likelihood of success on the merits and thus this motion must be DENIED.

C. Balance of Hardships

Given that the District failed to demonstrate a likelihood of prevailing on the merits, the Court need not consider the balance of harms and whether that balance tips in Plaintiff's favor. (Hunt v. Superior Court (1999) 21 Cal.4th 984, 999 [“trial court may not grant

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26CV005473: ASSEMBLIES OF GOD, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA DISTRICT COUNCIL, INC. vs HARVEST CHURCH ELK GROVE, et al. 05/27/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order in Department 8D

a preliminary injunction, regardless of the balance of the interim harm, unless there is some possibility that the plaintiff would ultimately prevail on the merits of the claim.”]; see also Jessen v. Keystone Sav. & Loan Ass'n (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 454, 459 [court may deny preliminary injunction solely on finding that the moving party failed to demonstrate reasonable probability of success on the merits].) As the Court of Appeal has stated, “[b]ecause we conclude plaintiff cannot succeed on the merits of his action, we need not address the balance of harms granting or not granting the injunction would impose on the parties ” (Jamison v. Dept. of Trans. (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 356, 366.) The same applies here.

IV.

Disposition

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES, in its entirety, the District’s request for preliminary injunction.

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

[1] The Court notes that Articles IV of Harvest’s By-Laws only has 2 sections. The Court

believes that the District may be referencing Article IV, section 4 of Harvest’s Constitution. [2] For example, while the District seeks declaratory relief (and preliminary injunctive

relief) regarding compliance with the by-laws regarding new membership, the District’s moving papers do not identify any evidence, including declarations, to demonstrate that there is a live controversy regarding compliance with the by-laws for new membership. Moreover, it is unclear from the District’s submissions how the current process for new membership constitutes irreparable injury, particularly where, as set forth above, there is insufficient evidence demonstrating that Rev. Smith is involved in new membership efforts. The Court further notes its concern regarding whether conduct relating to membership may implicate ecclesiastical issues outside of this Court’s purview. Nevertheless, because the District presents insufficient evidence to show a live controversy (and thus, a likelihood of success on the merits), the Court need not reach this issue.