Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Barbara
Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL 4/15/2024 12:47 PM
RACHEL VAN MULLEM, County Counsel By: Terri Chavez , Deputy
CALLIE KIM, Deputy County Counsel (SBN 257213)
105 East Anapamu Street, Suite 201
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Telephone (805) 568-2950 / Fax (805) 568-2982
E-mail: ckim@countyofsb.org
Attorneys for Respondents
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA,
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA,
LISA PLOWMAN, ROB HAZARD,
TRAVIS SEAWARDS, and
DAS WILLIAMS, FIRST DISTRICT SUPERVISOR
Exempt from filing fees [Gov. Code, § 6103]
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
13 (ANACAPA DIVISION)
14
15 JANA ZIMMER, an individual and Case No.: 24CV00199
TRUSTEE OF THE SOLOMON-
16 ZIMMER LIVING TRUST,
RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S EX
17 Petitioner, PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE BRIEF
VS.
LONGER THAN 15 PAGES;
18
DECLARATION OF CALLIE KIM;
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA,
19 [PROPOSED] ORDER
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF SANTA Writ filed: January 16, 2024
20
BARBARA, LISA PLOWMAN,
21 DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND Judge: Hon. Colleen K. Sterne
DEVELOPMENT, ROB HAZARD, Dept. SB5
22 FIRE MARSHAL, TRAVIS
SEAWARDS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR
23 OF PLANNING AND
24 DEVELOPMENT, DAS
WILLIAMS, FIRST DISTRICT
25 SUPERVISOR, DOES 1-25, in their
official and individual capacities,
26
Respondents.
27
28
SANTA BARBARA
COUNTY Cou! aLs
105 E. Anapanu Sn i
Santa Barbara, CA 931 01, COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO EX PARTE APPLICATION; DECLARATION; PROPOSED ORDER.
(805) 568-2950
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
Respondents COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF
THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, LISA PLOWMAN, ROB HAZARD, TRAVIS
SEAWARDS, and DAS WILLIAMS, FIRST DISTRICT SUPERVISOR (collectively
“County”) hereby respond to Petitioner’s ex parte application as follows:
Petitioner Jana Zimmer filed a verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint for
declaratory relief and damages. The pleading totals 114 pages including the attached exhibits.
After meeting and conferring with counsel for Petitioner, the County filed a demurrer. The
memorandum supporting the demurrer is 14 pages long. (Declaration of Callie Kim.)
10 Today, Monday April 15, 2024, Petitioners filed an ex parte application requesting
ll permission to file a 35-page opposition to the County’s 14-page demurrer. Attached to the ex
12 parte application is a document labeled “Request for Judicial Notice Exhibit 16.”
13 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(e), “A party may apply to the court
14 ex parte but with written notice of the application to the other parties, at least 24 hours before
15 the memorandum is due, for permission to file a longer memorandum. The application must
16 state reasons why the argument cannot be made within the stated limit.” The application does
17 not comply with this rule or the technical requirements for an ex parte motion under Rule
18 3.1204(b), which states:
19
“An ex parte application must be accompanied by a declaration regarding notice
20 stating:
(1) The notice given, including the date, time, manner, and name of the
21 party informed, the relief sought, any response, and whether opposition is
expected and that, within the applicable time under rule 3.1203, the applicant
22 informed the opposing party where and when the application would be made;
(2) That the applicant in good faith attempted to inform the opposing
23 party but was unable to do so, specifying the efforts made to inform the opposing
party; or
24 (3) That, for reasons specified, the applicant should not be required to
inform the opposing party.
25
26 The Declaration of Richard Solomon includes factual allegations not relevant to the ex
27 parte application and legal arguments, but it does not provide any of the required information
28 regarding notice. Counsel for the County did not receive any notice of the ex parte application.
SANTA BARBARA
COUNTY COUNSEL. -2-
105 E. Anapamu Sireet, £201
Santa Barbara, CA 93101 COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO EX PARTE APPLICATION; DECLARATION; PROPOSED ORDER
(805) 568-2950
(Declaration of Callie Kim.) In addition, the application fails to state factual reasons why the
argument cannot be made within the stated limit, offering only legal argument instead. (See Cal.
Rule of Court 3.1113(e).)
The factual and legal issues presented by the demurrer do not require more than double
the normal length allowed for a memorandum under Rule 3.1113. Solomon’s Declaration
demonstrates Petitioner’s tendency to include extraneous information and accusations. If,
however, the Court grants the additional 35 pages requested by Petitioner, or any additional
pages above the normal 15-page limit, the County requests an additional seven days to prepare
its reply to the over-length opposition. This would mean the reply brief would be due on April
10 29, 2024 and the hearing on the demurrer would be held on May 6, 2024. The County also
11 requests an additional five pages for its reply brief, for a total of 15 pages, which it will only use
12 if necessary to respond to the Petitioner’s opposition.
13 Additionally, as noted above, the application includes an exhibit labeled a request for
14 judicial notice. Rule 3.1113(1) states: “Any request for judicial notice must be made in a
15 separate document listing the specific items for which notice is requested and must comply with
16 rule 3.1306(c).” The request for judicial notice is not made in a separate document and
17 Petitioner has provided no authority that the partial email chain that includes self-serving
18 statements by Petitioner’s counsel is subject to judicial notice. The email chain is not
19 admissible under Evidence Code section 451 or section 452. Nor is the email chain relevant to
20 the Court’s consideration of the ex parte application. Accordingly, the County requests that the
21 Court deny the request for judicial notice.
22
DATED: April 15, 2024 RACHEL VAN MULLEM
23 Ss \ BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL
24
By Callie Kim,
25 Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for Respondents
26 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA
27 BARBARA, LISA PLOWMAN, ROB HAZARD,
TRAVIS SEAWARDS, and DAS WILLIAMS, FIRST
28 DISTRICT SUPERVISOR
SANTA BARBARA
COUNTY COUNSEL. 28 =
105 E. Anapanu Si
‘Santa Barbara, CA 93} i COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO EX PARTE APPLICATION; DECLARATION; PROPOSED ORDER
(805) 568-2950
DECLARATION OF CALLIE KIM
I, CALLIE KIM, declare as follows:
1 I am an attorney, duly licensed to practice law in the State of California, and a
Senior Deputy County Counsel in the Office of County Counsel, attorneys of record for
Defendants/Respondents County of Santa Barbara, Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa
Barbara, Lisa Plowman, Rob Hazard, Travis Seawards, and Das Williams. The matters set forth
in this Declaration are based on my personal knowledge, and, if called as a witness, I could
competently testify to the facts contained in this declaration.
2 On Monday April 15, 2024, I received emails from no-
10 reply@efilingmail.tylertech.cloud and Ashley Casanova ashley@andreamarcuslaw.com that an
11 ex parte application to file brief longer than 15 pages had been filed. I received no phone calls,
12 voicemails, or emails from counsel for Petitioner alerting me that an ex parte application would
13 be filed and requesting my position on the ex parte application.
14 3 The verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief
15 filed in this matter totals 114 pages, including the attached exhibits. The County’s
16 memorandum supporting its demurrer, which was filed after meeting and conferring with
17 Petitioner’s counsel, is 14 pages long.
18 4 If Petitioner is permitted to file a 35-page opposition to the County’s demurrer, I
19 believe I will need an additional seven days to adequately respond to all of the information in
20 the opposition and an additional five pages for the reply. I will, however, endeavor to keep the
21 reply as short as possible.
22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
23 foregoing is true and correct.
24
25 Executed on April 15, 2023, in Santa Barbara, California.
26
C2. A—
27 Callie Patton Kim
28
SANTA BARBARA
COUNTY COUNSEL ede
105E. Anapamu Street, #201
‘Santa Barbara, CA 93101 COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO EX PARTE APPLICATION; DECLARATION; PROPOSED ORDER
(805) 568-2950
[PROPOSED] ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED that:
1 Respondents shall have until April 29, 2024 to file a reply in supp of the
demurrer. The reply may be 15 pages in length.
2 The hearing on demurrer shall be moved from April 29, 2024fo May 6, 2024 at
10:00 am.
a Petitioners’ request for judicial notice is denied.
DATED: _——
Honorable Coffeen Sterne
JUDGE OF HE SUPERIOR COURT
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
28
SANTAQARBARA
coun ‘COUNSEL. -5-
105E. Anapemn Street, #201
Sama Barbara, CA 93101 COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO EX PARTE APPLICATION; DECLARATION; PROPOSED ORDER
(805) 568-2950
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
Iam a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the
age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address
is 105 East Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, California.
On April 15, 2024, I served a true copy of the within RESPONSE TO
PETITIONER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE BRIEF LONGER
THAN 15 PAGES; DECLARATION OF CALLIE KIM; [PROPOSED] ORDER
on the Interested Parties in this action by:
x by mail to the person(s) indicted below. I am familiar with the practice of the
Office of Santa Barbara County Counsel for the collection and processing of
correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with
10
the ordinary course of business, the above-mentioned document would have been
11 deposited with the United States Postal Service, after having been deposited and
processed for postage with the County of Santa Barbara Central Mail Room.
12
13 Andréa Marcus, Esq. Richard C. Solomon
133 E. De La Guerra St. #143 2640 Las Encinas Lane
14 Santa Barbara California 93101 Santa Barbara, CA, 93105
Email: andrea@andreamarcuslaw.com Email: resolomon42@gmail.com
15
16 XI by e-mail or electronic transmission. I caused the document(s) to be sent from
e-mail address mheuve@countofsb.org to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in
17 the below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any
18
electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
19 Andréa Marcus, andrea@andreamarcuslaw.com, Attorney for Plaintiff
Richard C. Solomon, rcsolomon42@gmail.com, Attorney for Plaintiff
20
21 (_] by depositing it in the United States Mail in a sealed envelope with postage
thereon fully prepaid to the following to the person(s) indicated below.
22
23
KX] (State) I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the above is true and correct.
24 Executed on April 15, 2024, at Santa Barbara, California.
25 Warbler
van den Newel,
26 Marleen van den Heuvel
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara 7
105 East Anapamu Street
Sant bara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950 28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED Superior Court of California County of Santa Barbara Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL 4/15/2024 12:47 PM RACHEL VAN MULLEM, County Counsel By: Terri Chavez , Deputy CALLIE KIM, Deputy County Counsel (SBN 257213) 105 East Anapamu Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, California 93101 Telephone (805) 568-2950 / Fax (805) 568-2982 E-mail: ckim@countyofsb.org Attorneys for Respondents COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, LISA PLOWMAN, ROB HAZARD, TRAVIS SEAWARDS, and DAS WILLIAMS, FIRST DISTRICT SUPERVISOR Exempt from filing fees [Gov. Code, § 6103] 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 13 (ANACAPA DIVISION) 14 15 JANA ZIMMER, an individual and Case No.: 24CV00199 TRUSTEE OF THE SOLOMON- 16 ZIMMER LIVING TRUST, RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S EX 17 Petitioner, PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE BRIEF VS. LONGER THAN 15 PAGES; 18 DECLARATION OF CALLIE KIM; COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, 19 [PROPOSED] ORDER BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA Writ filed: January 16, 2024 20 BARBARA, LISA PLOWMAN, 21 DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND Judge: Hon. Colleen K. Sterne DEVELOPMENT, ROB HAZARD, Dept. SB5 22 FIRE MARSHAL, TRAVIS SEAWARDS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR 23 OF PLANNING AND 24 DEVELOPMENT, DAS WILLIAMS, FIRST DISTRICT 25 SUPERVISOR, DOES 1-25, in their official and individual capacities, 26 Respondents. 27 28 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY Cou! aLs 105 E. Anapanu Sn i Santa Barbara, CA 931 01, COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO EX PARTE APPLICATION; DECLARATION; PROPOSED ORDER. (805) 568-2950 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Respondents COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, LISA PLOWMAN, ROB HAZARD, TRAVIS SEAWARDS, and DAS WILLIAMS, FIRST DISTRICT SUPERVISOR (collectively “County”) hereby respond to Petitioner’s ex parte application as follows: Petitioner Jana Zimmer filed a verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief and damages. The pleading totals 114 pages including the attached exhibits. After meeting and conferring with counsel for Petitioner, the County filed a demurrer. The memorandum supporting the demurrer is 14 pages long. (Declaration of Callie Kim.) 10 Today, Monday April 15, 2024, Petitioners filed an ex parte application requesting ll permission to file a 35-page opposition to the County’s 14-page demurrer. Attached to the ex 12 parte application is a document labeled “Request for Judicial Notice Exhibit 16.” 13 Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113(e), “A party may apply to the court 14 ex parte but with written notice of the application to the other parties, at least 24 hours before 15 the memorandum is due, for permission to file a longer memorandum. The application must 16 state reasons why the argument cannot be made within the stated limit.” The application does 17 not comply with this rule or the technical requirements for an ex parte motion under Rule 18 3.1204(b), which states: 19 “An ex parte application must be accompanied by a declaration regarding notice 20 stating: (1) The notice given, including the date, time, manner, and name of the 21 party informed, the relief sought, any response, and whether opposition is expected and that, within the applicable time under rule 3.1203, the applicant 22 informed the opposing party where and when the application would be made; (2) That the applicant in good faith attempted to inform the opposing 23 party but was unable to do so, specifying the efforts made to inform the opposing party; or 24 (3) That, for reasons specified, the applicant should not be required to inform the opposing party. 25 26 The Declaration of Richard Solomon includes factual allegations not relevant to the ex 27 parte application and legal arguments, but it does not provide any of the required information 28 regarding notice. Counsel for the County did not receive any notice of the ex parte application. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL. -2- 105 E. Anapamu Sireet, £201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO EX PARTE APPLICATION; DECLARATION; PROPOSED ORDER (805) 568-2950 (Declaration of Callie Kim.) In addition, the application fails to state factual reasons why the argument cannot be made within the stated limit, offering only legal argument instead. (See Cal. Rule of Court 3.1113(e).) The factual and legal issues presented by the demurrer do not require more than double the normal length allowed for a memorandum under Rule 3.1113. Solomon’s Declaration demonstrates Petitioner’s tendency to include extraneous information and accusations. If, however, the Court grants the additional 35 pages requested by Petitioner, or any additional pages above the normal 15-page limit, the County requests an additional seven days to prepare its reply to the over-length opposition. This would mean the reply brief would be due on April 10 29, 2024 and the hearing on the demurrer would be held on May 6, 2024. The County also 11 requests an additional five pages for its reply brief, for a total of 15 pages, which it will only use 12 if necessary to respond to the Petitioner’s opposition. 13 Additionally, as noted above, the application includes an exhibit labeled a request for 14 judicial notice. Rule 3.1113(1) states: “Any request for judicial notice must be made in a 15 separate document listing the specific items for which notice is requested and must comply with 16 rule 3.1306(c).” The request for judicial notice is not made in a separate document and 17 Petitioner has provided no authority that the partial email chain that includes self-serving 18 statements by Petitioner’s counsel is subject to judicial notice. The email chain is not 19 admissible under Evidence Code section 451 or section 452. Nor is the email chain relevant to 20 the Court’s consideration of the ex parte application. Accordingly, the County requests that the 21 Court deny the request for judicial notice. 22 DATED: April 15, 2024 RACHEL VAN MULLEM 23 Ss \ BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL 24 By Callie Kim, 25 Deputy County Counsel Attorneys for Respondents 26 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA 27 BARBARA, LISA PLOWMAN, ROB HAZARD, TRAVIS SEAWARDS, and DAS WILLIAMS, FIRST 28 DISTRICT SUPERVISOR SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL. 28 = 105 E. Anapanu Si ‘Santa Barbara, CA 93} i COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO EX PARTE APPLICATION; DECLARATION; PROPOSED ORDER (805) 568-2950 DECLARATION OF CALLIE KIM I, CALLIE KIM, declare as follows: 1 I am an attorney, duly licensed to practice law in the State of California, and a Senior Deputy County Counsel in the Office of County Counsel, attorneys of record for Defendants/Respondents County of Santa Barbara, Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara, Lisa Plowman, Rob Hazard, Travis Seawards, and Das Williams. The matters set forth in this Declaration are based on my personal knowledge, and, if called as a witness, I could competently testify to the facts contained in this declaration. 2 On Monday April 15, 2024, I received emails from no- 10 reply@efilingmail.tylertech.cloud and Ashley Casanova ashley@andreamarcuslaw.com that an 11 ex parte application to file brief longer than 15 pages had been filed. I received no phone calls, 12 voicemails, or emails from counsel for Petitioner alerting me that an ex parte application would 13 be filed and requesting my position on the ex parte application. 14 3 The verified petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief 15 filed in this matter totals 114 pages, including the attached exhibits. The County’s 16 memorandum supporting its demurrer, which was filed after meeting and conferring with 17 Petitioner’s counsel, is 14 pages long. 18 4 If Petitioner is permitted to file a 35-page opposition to the County’s demurrer, I 19 believe I will need an additional seven days to adequately respond to all of the information in 20 the opposition and an additional five pages for the reply. I will, however, endeavor to keep the 21 reply as short as possible. 22 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 23 foregoing is true and correct. 24 25 Executed on April 15, 2023, in Santa Barbara, California. 26 C2. A— 27 Callie Patton Kim 28 SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COUNSEL ede 105E. Anapamu Street, #201 ‘Santa Barbara, CA 93101 COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO EX PARTE APPLICATION; DECLARATION; PROPOSED ORDER (805) 568-2950 [PROPOSED] ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED that: 1 Respondents shall have until April 29, 2024 to file a reply in supp of the demurrer. The reply may be 15 pages in length. 2 The hearing on demurrer shall be moved from April 29, 2024fo May 6, 2024 at 10:00 am. a Petitioners’ request for judicial notice is denied. DATED: _—— Honorable Coffeen Sterne JUDGE OF HE SUPERIOR COURT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 SANTAQARBARA coun ‘COUNSEL. -5- 105E. Anapemn Street, #201 Sama Barbara, CA 93101 COUNTY’S RESPONSE TO EX PARTE APPLICATION; DECLARATION; PROPOSED ORDER (805) 568-2950 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA Iam a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 105 East Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, California. On April 15, 2024, I served a true copy of the within RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE BRIEF LONGER THAN 15 PAGES; DECLARATION OF CALLIE KIM; [PROPOSED] ORDER on the Interested Parties in this action by: x by mail to the person(s) indicted below. I am familiar with the practice of the Office of Santa Barbara County Counsel for the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with 10 the ordinary course of business, the above-mentioned document would have been 11 deposited with the United States Postal Service, after having been deposited and processed for postage with the County of Santa Barbara Central Mail Room. 12 13 Andréa Marcus, Esq. Richard C. Solomon 133 E. De La Guerra St. #143 2640 Las Encinas Lane 14 Santa Barbara California 93101 Santa Barbara, CA, 93105 Email: andrea@andreamarcuslaw.com Email: resolomon42@gmail.com 15 16 XI by e-mail or electronic transmission. I caused the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address mheuve@countofsb.org to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in 17 the below. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any 18 electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 19 Andréa Marcus, andrea@andreamarcuslaw.com, Attorney for Plaintiff Richard C. Solomon, rcsolomon42@gmail.com, Attorney for Plaintiff 20 21 (_] by depositing it in the United States Mail in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to the following to the person(s) indicated below. 22 23 KX] (State) I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the above is true and correct. 24 Executed on April 15, 2024, at Santa Barbara, California. 25 Warbler van den Newel, 26 Marleen van den Heuvel COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 7 105 East Anapamu Street Sant bara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 PROOF OF SERVICE