In the Matter of: The Marjorie Blum Living Trust; Jonathan Blum v. Albert Blum, Peter Cianchetta, Joshua Johnson, and DOES 1-25

26PR000593: IN THE MATTER OF: THE MARJORIE BLUM LIVING TRUST 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other of Special Motion to Strike Petition, and Certain Causes of Action Therein As a Strategic Action Against Public Participation in Department 129

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.

TENTATIVE RULING This is a dispute arising from Respondent Attorney Joshua Johnson’s (“Respondent”) representation of Respondent Albert Blum (“Blum”), surviving spouse of Decedent Marjorie Ann Blum (“Decedent”), relating to a Petition for Instruction filed April 30, 2025. (Memorandum of Points and Authorities [“MPA”], 2:22.) Petitioner Jonathan Blum (“Petitioner”) alleges Respondent, Blum, and Respondent Attorney Peter Cianchetta caused the sale of multiple properties, and the execution of various deeds of real property, which were “false and fraudulent instruments” that disparage Petitioner’s title to such properties. (Petition, ¶¶ 33a.-e., 53a.-b.)

Respondent filed this anti-SLAPP alleging that all conduct asserted in the petition is protected litigation activity under Civil Code, section 47.

Respondent’s request for judicial notice is granted. The Court only takes judicial notice of the existence of the documents and not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v. Dept. of Transportation (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 was enacted “to provide a procedural remedy to dispose of lawsuits that are brought to chill the valid exercise of constitutional rights.” (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1055-1056.) The statute shall be liberally construed. (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16(a).)

A court’s review of an anti-SLAPP motion involves a two-prong process. (Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, 88.) First, a court must determine whether the defendant “has made a threshold showing that the challenged cause of action is one arising from [this statutorily] protected activity. A defendant meets this burden by demonstrating that the act underlying the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26PR000593: IN THE MATTER OF: THE MARJORIE BLUM LIVING TRUST 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other of Special Motion to Strike Petition, and Certain Causes of Action Therein As a Strategic Action Against Public Participation in Department 129

plaintiff’s cause fits one of the categories spelled out in section 425.16, subdivision (e).” (Id., citing Braun v. Chronicle Publishing Co. (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1036, 1043.)

Pursuant to the language of the statute, an ‘act in furtherance of a person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue’ includes: (1) any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, (2) any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, (3) any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest, or (4) any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of the constitutional right of petition or the constitutional right of free speech in connection with a public issue or an issue of public interest.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(e).)

Second, if the defendant meets their burden as to the first prong, a court must then determine whether the plaintiff has “established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16(b)(1).) In this step, a plaintiff “need only establish that his or her claim has ‘minimal merit’ [citation] to avoid being stricken as a SLAPP.” (Dae v. Traver (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 447, 455.)

“[I]n order to establish the requisite probability of prevailing, the plaintiff need only have stated and substantiated a legally sufficient claim. Put another way, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the complaint is both legally sufficient and supported by a sufficient prima facie showing of facts to sustain a favorable judgment if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is credited.’” (Navellier, supra, 29 Cal.4th 82 at p. 88-89 [internal citations omitted].)

“The ‘arising from’ requirement requires more than simply some relationship between the cause of action and the protected activity. It is not enough that the cause of action was in response to or triggered by the protected activity. [Citation.] ‘[A] cause of action arises from protected conduct if the wrongful, injurious act(s) alleged by the plaintiff constitute protected conduct.’” (Greco v. Greco (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 810, 820 [italics in original].)

The wrongful, injurious conduct detailed in the petition are the alleged the aiding and abetting of Respondent in Albert’s alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, as well as in his assistance in preparing deeds relating to the trust assets. Respondent bases his anti-SLAPP motion on the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

26PR000593: IN THE MATTER OF: THE MARJORIE BLUM LIVING TRUST 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other of Special Motion to Strike Petition, and Certain Causes of Action Therein As a Strategic Action Against Public Participation in Department 129

grounds that all alleged conduct is protected under the litigation privilege.

Pursuant to Civil Code, section 47(b), the litigation privilege applies, “[i]n any (1) legislative proceeding, (2) judicial proceeding, (3) in any other official proceeding authorized by law, or (4) in the initiation or course of any other proceeding authorized by law and reviewable pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1084) of Title 1 of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure ” (Civ. Code, § 47 (b).) “[T]he litigation privilege applies to any communication (1) made in judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings; (2) by litigants or other participants authorized by law; (3) to achieve the objects of the litigation; and (4) that have some connection or logical relation to the action. [Citations.]” Thus, ‘communications with ‘some relation’ to judicial proceedings’ are ‘absolutely immune from tort liability’ by the litigation privilege.” (Rusheen, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1057 [Citations omitted].)

Here, the alleged conduct of aiding and abetting Blum’s purported breaches of duty, fraud/misrepresentation, and committing slander of title arises from Respondent’s representation of Blum’s administration of Decedent’s estate and pour-over will. Blum filed a competing petition for probate, and became executor of Decedent’s estate, and also sought instruction relating to the validity of Decedent’s estate documents. (MPA, 2:19-20, 3:1-4.)

The Court agrees with Respondent that the litigation privilege applies. Here, all of Respondent’s conduct about which Petitioner complains allegedly occurred in connection with the estate administration and petition for instruction, which are judicial proceedings. Because the alleged conduct occurred in connection with a judicial proceeding, and because the litigation privilege applies as a defense to the claims against Respondent (Rusheen, supra, 37 Cal.4th at p. 1057), Petitioner has not demonstrated a probability of prevailing on the claims against Respondent and the Court must grant the motion.

Defendants may seek attorney fees by separate motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 425.16(c).

Respondent shall prepare for the Court’s signature a formal order and judgment of dismissal pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.

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