OKAMOTO, et al. vs HARVEST CHURCH, 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****

Plaintiffs Rodney Okamoto and Paula Okamoto’s (“Plaintiffs”) application for right to attach order and writ of attachment against Defendant Harvest Church Elk Grove’s (“Defendant”) is ruled upon as follows.

Plaintiffs donated two million dollars to Defendant in November 2021. The parties dispute whether and to what extent there are restrictions on this donation.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV018649: OKAMOTO, et al. vs HARVEST CHURCH, et al. 05/04/2026 Hearing on Writ of Attachment in Department 8C

Plaintiffs allege that the donation was a restricted donation to be used expressly and exclusively to launch the Family Life Center ministry (FLC) and permanent building on the Harvest Church premises in Elk Grove, California.

In communications between the parties that occurred years later, in the Spring of 2023, Defendant’s representative asked Plaintiffs about restrictions on the donation, and Plaintiffs responded with express restrictions they wanted on the donated funds, including, among other derails, that were and are that it is to be used expressly and exclusively to launch the FLC, and that the permanent building ground-breaking be started in a timely manner, within 2 1/2 years of the donation date. (June 2024). (R. Okamoto Decl., ¶ 13; Exh. C.)

In a May 3, 2023 email, Plaintiffs stated:

Please understand that IF the donation is not used for the purpose or in a timely manner as outlined in the stipulations, OR if the church decides not to proceed with the Family Life Center building and ministry as we’ve spelled out. The donation shall be returned so we may be a blessing to God’s Kingdom elsewhere.

(R. Okamoto Decl., ¶ 13; Exh. C.)

Defendant has not started broken ground on the FLC and has not returned the donation to Plaintiffs, despite Plaintiffs’ demand therefor.

There has been changes in the leadership of Defendant and disputes within Defendant’s management since Plaintiffs’ 2021 donation.

The parties currently dispute whether or not Defendant still plans to use to donated funds for the FLC.

Trial is set in this action for June 16, 2026.

Plaintiffs now seek an attachment in the amount of two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) against Defendant under the first cause of action of their Complaint for breach of contract.

Legal Standard

A Right to Attach Order and Order for Issuance of a Writ of Attachment “shall be issued” if the Court finds at the hearing that: “(1) the claim upon which the attachment is based is one upon which an attachment may be issued; (2) the plaintiff has established the probable validity of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV018649: OKAMOTO, et al. vs HARVEST CHURCH, et al. 05/04/2026 Hearing on Writ of Attachment in Department 8C

claim upon which the attachment is based; (3) the attachment is not sought for a purpose other than the recovery of the claim upon which the attachment is based; and (4) the amount to be secured by the attachment is greater than zero.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 484.090(a)(1-4).) The Court's determination is to be made upon the basis of the pleading and other papers in the record. (Code Civ. Proc. § 484.090(d).)

Where a defendant opposes an application for writ of attachment, “the court must consider the relative merits of the positions of the respective parties and make a determination of the probable outcome of that litigation.” (Loeb & Loeb v. Beverly Glen Music, Inc. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1110, 1120.)

There are strict statutory requirements that must be met to establish a prima facie claim to relief. Strict construction of the statutory scheme prevents any relief unless specifically provided in statute. (Pacific Decision Sciences Corp. v Superior Court (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 1100, 1106.)

Probable Validity of the Claim

Plaintiffs have the burden of proving the probable validity of the claim (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 481.190, 484.090(a)(2)) by admissible evidence, such as an appropriate declaration. (Code Civ. Proc. § 484.030.)

Here, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that the funds are subject to the restriction that they be used to build the FLC at the time the donation was made and accepted in 2021, including the declaration of Plaintiff Rodney Okamoto and including the check tendered by Plaintiffs which bears the notation “2021 FAM LIFE Center Donation.” (R. Okamoto Decl., ¶ 9; Exh. A.). The Court concludes that notation, purportedly written by Pastor Kallevig after Plaintiff Rodney Okamoto handed him the check, makes it probable that Plaintiffs will confirm that the parties’ shared a mutual understanding that the funds were restricted for use towards the building of the FLC.

However, the Court does not find that admissible evidence has been presented which would establish that the more detailed restrictions, including the time restrictions, specified by Plaintiff Rodney Okamoto in his May 2023 email, were made and accepted at the time of the 2021 donation.

For this reason, the Court now turns to whether Plaintiffs have a probability of succeeding in proving that Defendant has breached an obligation to restrict the donated funds to the building of the FLC.

On one hand, Plaintiffs submit the declaration of counsel, who attaches a signed June 24, 2025

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV018649: OKAMOTO, et al. vs HARVEST CHURCH, et al. 05/04/2026 Hearing on Writ of Attachment in Department 8C

letter from Pastor Jon Smith, of Harvest Church, which states, in part:

This letter is to formally state that, at this time, neither Harvest Church nor Pastor Jon Smith has any current plans involving the development and implementation of building a Family Life Center.

I have been informed that the prior administration of Harvest Church may have implemented a concept or plan for Family Life Center led by Perry Kallevig, with reviews and considerations made by the Board.

However, these plans and discussions were made before I was hired by Harvest Chirch and assumed my current role as Lead Pastor of Harvest Church. No such plans have been adopted or advanced under my leadership.

Any future developments or decisions regarding this matter will be communicated through the appropriate channels

(Decl. Cameron at Ex. A.)

However, in opposition to the application, Defendant submits the declaration of Jon Smith, which states, “Harvest Church continues to intend to construct a Family Life Center and continues to maintain Plaintiffs’ donation for that purpose.” (Decl. Smith, ¶ 22.)

Defendant also submits the declaration of Tim Van Gelder, who avers that he is the Board Chair Pro-Tern and Treasurer of Defendant, that he is familiar with Harvest Church's financial records, bank accounts, and accounting practices, including the segregation and tracking of designated building funds and donor-restricted contributions. Mr. Van Gelder states:

4. As of March 2026, Harvest Church maintains total cash and cash- equivalent balances in excess of $5,700,000 across its various bank accounts.

5. This total includes the $2,000,000 contribution made by Plaintiffs Rodney and Paula Okamoto in November 2021, which is held in a designated building-fund account and accounted for in the Church's internal financial records.

6. Harvest Church is financially solvent, is current on all ordinary business obligations, and continues to pay its operational expenses,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV018649: OKAMOTO, et al. vs HARVEST CHURCH, et al. 05/04/2026 Hearing on Writ of Attachment in Department 8C

payroll, and vendor obligations in the ordinary course of business.

7. Harvest Church has not experienced any liquidity crisis, has not defaulted on any obligations, and is not at risk of insolvency.

8. The Church continues to fund ongoing ministry operations and board- approved capital improvements, including necessary facility maintenance and upgrades.

9. The funds associated with Plaintiffs' donation have at all times been segregated and tracked within the Church's accounting system consistent with donor intent and Board directives. Those funds have not been dissipated, diverted, or used for unrelated purposes.

(Decl. Van Gelder, ¶¶ 4-9.)

The Court concludes, based on the evidence submitted by the parties, that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on their claim because they have failed to establish the probability of establishing the essential element of breach by Defendant.

Conclusion

The Application for a right to attach order and writ of attachment is DENIED.

The Court emphasizes that the denial of this application is based on the Court’s conclusions as to the probability of prevailing at trial based on the evidence submitted, and this ruling does not dictate any findings to be made at the trial in this action.

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