BROWN vs SPRATLEY, et al.

24CV024859: BROWN vs SPRATLEY, et al. 07/29/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Stay in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 8C in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail 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 they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16039062174

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

24CV024859: BROWN vs SPRATLEY, et al. 07/29/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Stay in Department 8C

(833) 568-8864

ID: 16039062174

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 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 STREET 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***

After reviewing the papers submitted by the parties in connection with Defendants’ Motion to Expunge Notice of Pendency of Action, the Court was inclined to order that

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV024859: BROWN vs SPRATLEY, et al. 07/29/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Stay in Department 8C

Plaintiff and both Defendants be required to appear and provide oral testimony concerning factual disputes underlying the motion per Code of Civil Procedure section 405.30, but noted that it appeared from the parties’ filings that criminal proceedings had been initiated against Defendant Jason Spratley and that such proceedings involve the same real property for which Plaintiff recorded the Notice of Pendency of Action at issue in Defendants’ motion to expunge. The Court also noted that in his June 18, 2026 declaration in support of Defendants’ motion, Mr. Spratley specifically invoked his privilege against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Accordingly, on its own motion, on June 26, 2026, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be stayed during the pendency of the aforementioned criminal proceedings against Mr. Spratley.

Plaintiff Latasha Brown (“Plaintiff”) filed a non-opposition to the order to show cause in support of a stay of the civil litigation pending the related criminal case.

Defendants Jason Spratley and Xochil Spratley filed a response in which they ask the Court to “stay testimonial proceedings concerning the charged instruments and conduct; decide the three pending motions on their existing records; vacate the mandatory settlement conference, trial date, and dependent deadlines; and, if it defers expungement, promptly determine Defendants’ request for an undertaking under Code of Civil Procedure section 405.34.” (Defendants’ Response, 1:12-15.)

Defendants’ papers also inform the Court that:

The criminal posture has materially changed since the Court issued the June 26 OSC. At the July 8, 2026 hearing, the prosecutor requested additional time to confer with Plaintiff’s civil counsel concerning the related proceedings. (Kline Decl. ¶ 23.) On July 14, the People filed a Second Amended Felony Complaint adding Counts Eight through Ten, which allege that Mr. Spratley offered the Warranty Deed, Power of Attorney, and Real Estate Purchase Agreement as genuine in this action. (Kline Decl. ¶ 24; Defs.’ RJN, Ex. 19 at p. 4.) Mrs. Spratley was arrested on related charges and arraigned on July 16. (Kline Decl. ¶¶ 25–26; Defs.’ RJN, Ex. 18 at p. 1.) Both Defendants now face felony charges

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV024859: BROWN vs SPRATLEY, et al. 07/29/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Stay in Department 8C

arising from the disputed instruments; the amended charges against Mr. Spratley additionally encompass their use in this action. These developments broaden the testimonial risk but do not alter the paper records on which the pending motions were submitted.

(Defendants’ Response, 1:19-28.)

Defendants ask that the Court take judicial notice of several Court filings and docket entries. Defendants’ request for judicial notice is granted.

Defendants’ central argument is that the pending motions that preceded the OSC never required testimony from Defendants. This is incorrect. The central dispute as to Defendants’ motion to expunge the lis pendens in the action rests on whether Defendants have a valid interest in the Property, and specifically at issue is whether the recorded papers relating to the purported transfer of ownership of the Property from Plaintiff to Defendants is fraudulent.

The Court has already informed the parties that it is inclined to set a hearing regarding oral testimony per Code of Civil Procedure section 405.30 in connection with the motion to expunge the lis pendens. Moreover, as Defendants have now informed the Court that felony charges were brought against both Defendants earlier this month based on Defendants’ use of the disputed instruments in this case, the Court concludes that Defendants’ Fifth Amendment rights are at stake in moving forward with this action regardless of whether oral testimony is required of them.

In determining whether to stay this matter pending resolution of the criminal proceedings against Defendants, the Court has considered the factors identified in Avant! Corp. v. Superior Ct. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 876. The Court finds that the balancing of those factors clearly weighs in favor of staying the entire case pending resolution of criminal proceedings against Defendants.

Accordingly, the Court orders that this action shall be stayed, in its entirety, pending resolution of the related criminal actions against both Defendants.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV024859: BROWN vs SPRATLEY, et al. 07/29/2026 Order to Show Cause Re: Stay in Department 8C

Counsel for Defendants shall provide notice to the Court and Plaintiff no later than 30 days following final resolution of the criminal proceedings against Defendants.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to CRC rule 3.1312 or other notice is required.