Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
FIGUEROA LAW GROUP, LLP Superior Court of California
James F. Scafide (SBN 262800) County of Santa Barbara
Tyler Sprague (SBN 314626) Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer
7 West Figueroa St., Suite 300 6/6/2023 1:07 PM
Santa Barbara, CA 93103 By: Terri Chavez , Deputy
Telephone: (805) 651-3021
Facsimile: (805) 456-0740
Email: Jim@Figueroa.law
Tyler@Figueroa.law
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Robert and Christine Schwob
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
Case No.:
23CV02404
ROBERT SCHWOB, an individual; CHRISTINE
10 VERIFIED PETION FOR
SCHWOB, an individual,
MANDAMUS (Civil Procedure §§
Os 11 Petitioners and Plaintiffs, 1085 and 1094.5);
mc COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
Bo v. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF:
the COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA,
1 Conspiracy
13
2. Private Nuisance
CALIFORNIA, a political subdivision; JEFF
@,, CROSBY, an individual; SUSAN CROSBY,
3. Declaratory Relief
15 an individual; AND DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE,
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
16 Respondents and Defendants. UNLIMITED CIVIL-DAMAGES IN
17 EXCESS OF $25,000.00.
18 COME NOW Petitioners/Plaintiffs, ROBERT SCHWOB and CHRISTINE SCHWOB,
19 who Petition for alternative and peremptory writs of mandate for the COUNTY OF SANTA
20 BARBARA, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 (or in the alternative, section
21 1094.5) for the removal of an illegal and non-compliant Sports Court and adjacent fencing,
22 which the Respondents/Defendants COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA has had the opportunity
23 to have removed, and complain against Respondent/Defendant COUNTY OF SANTA
24 BARBARA, CALIFORNIA, and Real Party in Interest/Defendants JEFF CROSBY, SUSAN
25 CROSBY, and as to Does 1-50, all of the above, and allege as follows:
26 1 All allegations made in this complaint are based upon information and belief,
27 except those allegations which pertain to the named plaintiffs, which are based on personal
28 knowledge. The allegations of this complaint stated on information and belief are likely to have
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
-1-
evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.
2. Plaintiffs ROBERT SCHWOB and CHRISTINE SCHWOB
(“Petitioner/Plaintiffs” or “Schwobs’’) bring this action as a result of Respondent/Defendant and
Real Party in Interest/Defendants’ blatant disregard and interference with Petitioner/Plaintiffs’
peaceful and quiet enjoyment of their real property home, located at 1422 East Valley Road,
Santa Barbara, California, 93108, and conspiracy by Respondent/Defendants County of Santa
Barbara, along with Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosbys that has allowed for the continued
existence of the nuisance.
3 Respondent/Defendant COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA
10 (“Respondent/Defendant” or “County”) conspired with Real Party in Interest/Defendant Crosbys
Os 11 in allowing for an illegal pickleball court to be installed, which facilitates the nuisance alleged
mc
Bo above in paragraph 2.
13 4 Real Party in Interest/Defendants JEFF CROSBY and SUSAN CROSBY
@,, (collectively the “Crosbys”, “Real Party in Interest/Defendants”) have created a nuisance at a
15 property adjacent to Petitioners/Plaintiffs, located at 551 Santa Angela Lane, Santa Barbara,
16 California, 93108. (See Exhibit A, which is a map depicting the location of the two properties.)
17 5 Petitioner/Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, seriously injured unless
18 Respondent/Defendants and Real Party in Interest/Defendants’ nuisance and other activities
19 complained of herein are not preliminarily and permanently enjoined. Petitioner/Plaintiffs will
20 suffer irreparable injury of a continuing nature that cannot be adequately calculated or
21 compensated in money damages because of this ongoing, continuous loss of quiet enjoyment of
22 their property and adverse impact on their health and wellbeing.
23 I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
24 6 This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure,
25 section 410.10, and this Court has jurisdiction to issue writs of mandate pursuant to Code of
26 Civil Procedure (CCP) section 1085 and 1094.5. Venue is proper in this Court because the acts
27 and violations of law by Defendants as alleged in this Complaint occurred within the County of
28 Santa Barbara, State of California (CCP section 393). Defendants at all times mentioned in this
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
-2-
Complaint are residents of Santa Barbara County, within the State of California, or have
transacted business within the County of Santa Barbara, State of California, or both, or are withi
the meaning of Government Code § 8698.
7 Petitioners have a clear, present, and beneficial right to the performance of
the enforcement of the Santa Barbara County Montecito Land Use and Development Code.
8 Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law.
9 Petitioners have exhausted all available administrative remedies, as alleged in
paragraph 40, below.
10. The property where the acts and practices described in this Complaint were, and
10 continue to be performed, is located in the County of Santa Barbara, California.
Os 11 Il. PARTIES
mc
Bo 11. Petitioners/Plaintiffs Robert Schwob and Christine Schwob are individuals with a
13 home in the County of Santa Barbara, California.
@,, 12. The title to Plaintiff’s home, located at 1422 East Valley Road, is held by
15 Petitioners/Plaintiffs.
16 13. Respondent/Defendant County of Santa Barbara is a political subdivision within
17 the meaning of California Government Code (Cal. Gov’t Code) § 8698 (a).
18 14. Petitioners/Plaintiffs filed a timely claim form submitted to the Defendant County
19 of Santa Barbara pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code, §§ 911.2(a), 945.4, but the Respondent/Defendant
20 County of Santa Barbara subsequently denied the Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ claim. A true and
21 accurate copy of the Claim Form presented by Schwobs is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
22 15. Real Party in Interest/Defendants Jeff Crosby and Susan Crosby are individuals
23 residing in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. Petitioners/Plaintiffs are unaware as|
24 to the ownership structure of the Real Party in Interest/Defendant Crosby’s home, which is
25 located at 551 Santa Angela Lane in the County of Santa Barbara.
26 16. Whenever reference is made in the Complaint to any act of any corporate or other
27 business Defendants, that reference shall mean that the corporation or other business did the acts
28 alleged in this complaint through its officers, directors, employees, agents, and/or representatives
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
-3-
while acting within the actual and ostensible scope of their authority.
17. Whenever reference is made in the Complaint to any act of the
Respondent/Defendant County of Santa Barbara, that reference shall mean that the Respondent/
Defendant did acts alleged in this complaint through its officers, supervisors, employees, agents,
and/or representatives while acting with the actual or ostensible scope of their authority.
18. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
otherwise, of the defendants named herein under the fictitious names of DOES | through 50,
inclusive, are unknown to plaintiffs, who therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names.
Plaintiff will ask leave of Court to amend this complaint and insert the true names and capacities
10 of said defendants when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and
Os 11 based thereon allege, that each of the defendants designated herein as a “DOE” is legally
mc
Bo responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein alleged, and that plaintiff's
13 damages as alleged herein were proximately caused by such defendants.
@,, 19. At all times material herein, each defendant was the agent, servant, and employee
15 of each of the remaining defendants, and acting within the purpose, scope, and course of said
16 agency, service, and employment, with the express and/or implied knowledge, permission, and
17 consent of the remaining defendants, and each of them, and each of said defendants ratified and
18 approved the acts of the other defendants.
19 Ill. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
20 20. Plaintiffs Robert and Christine Schwob purchased their home at 1422 East Valley
21 Road in January of 2020. The surrounding area, known locally as the Upper Village community,
22 is a highly valued and desirable neighborhood due to its peaceful, rural character. Plaintiffs’
23 home, in particular, enjoys year-round use of the outdoor living area.
24 NOTICE OF VIOLATION
25 21. On or about January 26, 2022, after numerous complaints by Petitioner/Plaintiffs
26 and others in the neighborhood, Staff from the Respondent/Defendant County visited the Real
27 Party in Interest/Defendants Crosby’s property. On February 11, 2022, Respondent/Defendant
28 County wrote a “Notice of Violation” to the Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosbys, noting
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
-4-
that there existed a pickleball court that exceeded “the cumulative square foot maximum of 30%
of the area of the rear setback of all structures in a rear setback.”! In addition, the Notice of
Violation also found that a fence built surrounding the Sports Court violated sections of the
Santa Barbara County Montecito Land Use and Development Code (the “Code”). The Notice of
Violation identified the following sections of the Code, which were violated: Chapter 5,
§35.400.040.A; §35.420.040.A; and §35.442.020.4.a.(1).(c) (as to the Sports Court) and Chapter
35, §35.400.040.A; §35.430.070.C; and §35.430.070 Table 3-2 (as to the fencing). (See Exhibit
C, which is a true and accurate copy of the Notice of Violation.)
22. To remedy the violation related to the Sports Court, the County of Santa Barbara
10 indicated that the Real Party in Interest/Defendant Crosbys must either relocate the Sports Court
Os 11 or remove it. To remedy the violation related to the fencing, the Respondent/Defendant County
mc
D3 12 of Santa Barbara recommended removing the fence, reducing its height, or applying for a permit.
13 THE SPORTS COURT
@,,
15
7)
16
Ly eerste)
17 BSYod
aN Co) Mad co) 18 N10 =
Ss a
18
pT Ce
i
19 i a yryacmerl ing bo
. Ber \
20
Prd
21
22
23
-
24
25
23. In 2020, on information and belief, a sports court (“Sports Court”) was
26
constructed without a permit on the Real Party in Interest/Defendants’ real property. The Sports
27
1 It is worth noting that the Crosbys were constructing an ADU on the premises. A second Noticd
of Violation (“Second Notice”) issued on September 9, 2022, is attached as Exh it D.
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
-5-
Court is approximately 31 feet by 60 feet and located in the rear setback approximately 8 inches
from the rear lot line and 7 feet-8 inches from the northern side lot line. On information and
belief, the Sports Court was constructed by Becker Studios Construction at the direction of Real
Party in Interest/Defendants Crosbys. The south easterly corner of the Sports Court is raised
greater than 30 inches so that the court sits level with the surrounding terrain. As such, the
Sports Court is not flat work. On top of the raised footing, a ten-foot fence was constructed. A
permanent basketball hoop and backboard and a pickleball net were installed. The Sports Court
was later painted with lines to accommodate a pickleball court.
24. Throughout 2020, 2021, and into 2022, Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosbys
10 and their family, guests or clients played pickleball at all hours of the day and night. The noise
Os 11 from the games caused disturbances to the Petitioner/Plaintiffs, whose bedroom is located less
mc
Bo than 30 feet away from the Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosby’s unpermitted Sports Court.
13 25. The Notice of Violation issued by the Respondent/Defendant County required that
@,, the entire Sports Court be removed, which necessitated the fencing being removed, as well.
15 REAL PARTY IN INTEREST/DEFENDANTS CROSBYS RESPOND TO NOTICE
16 26. In a letter to the County of Santa Barbara, Becker Studios Construction described
17 the process for constructing the sports court, and Respondent/Defendant County took a new tone,
18 27. In apparent response to the Notice of Violation, Real Party in Interest/Defendant
19 Crosbys removed the permanent Pickleball net, painted over the stripes that designated the
20 Pickleball court, and lowered the fence height to six feet.
21 28. All the while, Real Party in Interest/Defendants continued to play pickleball by
22 putting tape down on the surface to act as boundaries in lieu of painted lines.
23 SECOND NOTICE OF VIOLATION
24 29. Petitioners/Plaintiffs once again complained to the Respondent/Defendant County
25 about continued play of Pickleball at the Real Property in Interest/Defendant Crosbys’ property.
26 30. In apparent response to Schwobs’ and other neighbors’ complaints, the
27 Respondent/Defendant County issued the Second Notice, which targeted only the existence of
28 the Sports Court. See Exhibit D.
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
-6-
31. According to the Second Notice, “As it has been less than one year since the
abatement of the previous similar violation, you were not provided with a courtesy notice of the
complaint, and the investigation commenced immediately. We conducted a site investigation of
your property on September 9, 2022 and have determined that the following violation(s) exist on
your property in violation of Chapter 35 of the Santa Barbara County Code: ... Chapter 35,
§35.400.040.A; §35.420.040.A; and §35.442.020.4.a.(1).(c).” (Exhibit D.)
32. At this time, the Respondent/Defendant began to take a different approach: rather
than have the Sports Court removed or relocated, the County offered that the choices were to
remove the Sports Court or “Convert the sports court into a patio”, stating “If you decide to
10 pursue this option, you MUST remove all lines from the surface indicative of use as a sports
Os 11 court and remove the permanent tennis net.” (Exhibit D.)
mc
Bo 33. Instead of requiring the Sports Court to be removed or relocated,
13 Respondent/Defendant’s staff only required that the painted striping for a pickleball court be
@,, removed from the surface and that the fixed pickleball net be removed.
15 34. All the while, Real Party in Interest/Defendants —with the full knowledge of the
16 Respondent/Defendant County—continued to play pickleball by putting tape down on the
17 surface to act as boundaries in lieu of painted lines and putting in place a professional grade
18 moveable Pickleball net.
19 35. This arbitrary ruling by Respondent/Defendant County, hanging on the thin
20 distinctions between a fixed and moveable net, and taped or painted lines, is where the
21 Respondent/Defendant County has colluded with the Real Party in Interest/Defendant Crosbys.
22 The Respondent/Defendant County has worked with the Real Party in Interest/Defendant
23 Crosbys in an attempt to find a way around the letter of Code and permit the unpermittable. The
24 Respondent/Defendant County has arbitrarily redefined what constitutes a sports court and is
25 now playing make-believe that this pickleball court is just a funny looking patio.
26 36. Assuming, arguendo, the height of the fencing may have abated the first violation,
27 nothing done by the Real Party in Interest/Defendants abated the cumulative square foot
28 maximum of 30% of the area of the rear setback of all structures in a rear setback. The violation
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
-7-
still exists today, notwithstanding numerous complaints filed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff Schwobs.
Despite the requirement by the Respondent/Defendant County that all sports equipment be
removed from the site, the Real Party in Interest/Defendant Crosbys continue to have a
professional grade, moveable Pickleball net, pickleball court markings, and a permanent
basketball hoop and backboard.
PICKLEBALL NOISE
37. The playing by the Real Party in Interest/Defendants of Pickleball unreasonably
interferes with the enjoyment of the Schwobs’ property. Despite communications from the
Schwobs to the Crosbys, informing the Crosbys of the nuisance, the Crosbys have continued to
10 play pickleball on their Sports Court.
Os 11 38. Petitioner/Plaintiffs have been subjected to regular noise and disturbance
mc
Bo emanating from the Sports Court. The outdoor facilities are in use seven days a week, during
13 which Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ bedroom and backyard area
@,, are utterly destroyed. The noises from the Sports Court, due to pickleball, are audible from the
15 interior of Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ home, interfering with Petitioner/Plaintiffs invitees’
16 conversations and peaceful enjoyment of their home. The noise from the pickleball court, in
17 particular, is even objectionable from approximately 300 feet from the unpermitted court.
18 39. As the summer approaches and pandemic-related concerns abate, the Real Party i
19 Interest/Defendants Crosbys’ outdoor Sports Court will only gain more users and more use,
20 creating more frequent and more intrusive noise and disturbance to Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ peaceful
21 and quiet enjoyment of his home. While the Sports Court continues to exist less than 30 feet
22 from Plaintiffs’ home, the use of Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ property is substantially and irreparably
23 diminished, and Petitioner/Plaintiffs have been personally impacted by the stress and anxiety
24 caused by the constant disturbances.
25 40. Subsequent to the Respondent/Defendant County ignoring the Code violation,
26 Petitioners/Plaintiffs have written to the County of Santa Barbara Land Use Division seeking
27 redress, all such efforts were in vain.
28 //
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
-8-
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Mandamus
(As to Respondent/Defendant County of Santa Barbara)
41. Petitioner/Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above and
below.
42. Petitioner/Plaintiffs are entitled to have portions of the Santa Barbara County
Montecito Land Use and Development Code (“Code’’) enforced to protect them against
nuisances.
43. Respondent/Defendant County of Santa Barbara identified violations of the Code
10 which occurred at the address of the Defendants/Real Party of Interest Crosbys’ property.
Os 11 44. Respondent/Defendant County failed to enforce the provisions of the Code,
mc
Bo including, but not limited to, Chapter 5, §35.400.040.A; §35.420.040.A; and
13 §35.442.020.4.a.(1).(c) (as to the Sports Court) and Chapter 35, §35.400.040.A; §35.430.070.C;
@,, and §35.430.070 Table 3-2 (as to the fencing).
15 45. Respondent/Defendant County’s failure to enforce the provisions of the Code as
16 set forth above allow for a continuing nuisance to occur.
17 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
18 Conspiracy
19 (As to All Defendants)
20 46. Petitioners/Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above and
21 below.
22 47. Because Respondent/Defendant County of Santa Barbara issued the Notice of
23 Violation to the Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosby, at all times relevant herein
24 Respondent/Defendant County was aware that Defendants/Real Party in Interest Crosby had
25 installed an unpermitted and illegal Sport Court, in violation of the Code.
26 48. Additionally, because Petitioners/Plaintiffs made numerous complaints to
27 Respondent/Defendant County regarding the nuisance and unpermitted Sport Court, at all times
28 relevant herein Respondent/Defendant County was aware that Real Party in Interest/Defendants
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
-9-
Crosby were creating a public and private nuisance.
49. At all times beginning in February of 2022, Respondent/Defendants County acted
in cooperation and conspiracy with Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosbys in allowing for an
illegal pickleball court to exist.
50. In allowing an illegal and unpermitted pickleball court to exist,
Respondent/Defendant County advised, consented, looked the other way, overlooked violations,
and generally assisted Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosbys to have in existence an
unpermitted and illegal pickleball court.
51. Because of the existence of the pickleball court, and the noise emanating
10 therefrom, the Petitioner/Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer damages.
Os 11 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
mc
Bo Private Nuisance
13 (As to Defendants JEFF CROSBY and SUSAN CROSBY)
@,, 52. Petitioner/Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above and
15 below.
16 53. Pursuant to Civil Code sections 3479 et. seq, Petitioner/Plaintiff brings this civil
17 action for private nuisance.
18 54. The unpermitted and illegal construction and use of the Sport Court by the Real
19 Party in Interest/Defendant Crosbys has created an unreasonable and substantial interference
20 with Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property.
21 55. The illegal and unpermitted construction of the Sport Court within the setback
22 area violates Chapter 5, §35.400.040.A; §35.420.040.A; and §35.442.020.4.a.(1).(c) of the Code,
23 constituting a nuisance, per se.
24 56. The illegal and unpermitted construction of fencing violate Chapter 35,
25 §35.400.040.A; §35.430.070.C; and §35.430.070 Table 3-2 of the Code, constituting a nuisance,
26 per se.
27 57. Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosbys’ operation of the Sports Court, located
28 approximately thirty (30) feet from Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ bedroom window, has caused, and
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
- 10-
continues to cause Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ invitees extreme discomfort and annoyance and
significantly affects Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ ability to use their property, both inside and out. The
noise and disturbances impact their invitees’ enjoyment of their home, and refrain from the use
of their side yard and bedroom to get away from the noise.
58. The noise from the pickleball courts is so intrusive, it is even objectionable from a|
distance of approximately 300 feet from the courts. Petitioners/Plaintiffs are concerned about the
health risks associated with the stress, upset and annoyance, and long-term exposure to the
excessive noise and disturbance levels created by the games played on the Sports Court.
59. The condition of Real Party in Interest/Defendants’ property that each of them,
10 negligently and/or intentionally caused to exist constitute a nuisance within, but not limited to,
Os 11 the meaning of Civil Code, section 3479, et seq., in that said conditions were and are injurious to
mc
Bo the health and safety of Petitioners/Plaintiffs, indecent and offensive to the senses of
13 Petitioners/Plaintiffs, and did and continue to interfere substantially with Petitioners/Plaintiffs’
@,, comfortable enjoyment of the Property.
15 60. Such nuisances have been, and are ongoing.
16 61. The gravity of the harm caused by the Real Party in Interest/Defendants to the
17 Petitioner/Plaintiffs, essentially rendering their home and yard unusable, far outweighs any social
18 utility which might be gained from the use ofthe Sport Court.
19 62. Petitioners/Plaintiffs have not consented, or in any way approved of the use of the
20 Sports Court by Real Party in Interest/Defendants, their members, or the general public at large.
21 The Sport Court was constructed well after Petitioners/Plaintiffs acquired title to their real
22 property.
23 63. The defective conditions at Real Party in Interest/Defendants’ property constitute
24 a nuisance and unreasonably and substantially deprive Petitioner/Plaintiffs of the safe, healthy,
25 and comfortable use of their property.
26 64. Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosbys have failed to adequately abate the
27 nuisance as required by law and continue to operate the Sports Court.
28 //
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
-1l-
65. Petitioners/Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate, or speedy remedy at law in that Real
Party in Interest/Defendants Crosbys continue to violate the relevant provisions of the Code. It
would be difficult or impossible to determine monetary damages for the ongoing nuisance.
66. The harm to the Petitioners/Plaintiffs, as described herein, outweighs the removal
and disuse of the unpermitted Sport Court, which due to the Notices of Violation and lack of
permit should not be used in any case.
67. Petitioners/Plaintiffs have a high likelihood of successes in the matter as a
reasonable person would find the noise and disturbances of the Sport Court to be an
unreasonable interreference with Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their real property.
10 Further, this matter may be a per se nuisance.
Os 11 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
mc
Bo Declaratory Relief
13 (As to Respondent COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA and
@,, Real Party in Interest JEFF CROSBY and SUSAN CROSBY)
15 68. Petitioner/Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above and
16 below.
17 69. An actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating the
18 Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ rights or obligations has arisen.
19 70. Petitioner/Plaintiff is entitled to have portions of the Code enforced to protect
20 them against nuisances.
21 71. Respondent/Defendant County of Santa Barbara’s identified violations of the
22 Code which occurred at the address of the Defendants/Real Party of Interest Crosbys’ property.
23 72. Respondent/Defendant County failed to enforce the provisions of the Code,
24 including, but not limited to, Chapter 5, §35.400.040.A; §35.420.040.A; and
25 §35.442.020.4.a.(1).(c) (as to the Sports Court) and Chapter 35, §35.400.040.A; §35.430.070.C;
26 and §35.430.070 Table 3-2 (as to the fencing).
27 73. Respondent/Defendant County failure to enforce the provisions of the Code as set
28 forth above allow for a continuing nuisance to occur.
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
- 12-
74. Petitioner/Plaintiff requests that this Court find that Respondent/Defendant
CROSBY is in violation of Chapter 5, §35.400.040.A; §35.420.040.A; and
§35.442.020.4.a.(1).(c) (as to the Sports Court) and Chapter 35, §35.400.040.A; §35.430.070.C;
and §35.430.070 Table 3-2 (as to the fencing) of the Code, as defined herein.
IV. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Petitioners/Plaintiffs prays for judgment against
Respondent/Defendants/Real Party in Interest, jointly and severally, on each cause of action, as
follows:
As to Count First;
10 1 For injunctive relief, including a declaration that Petitioners/Plaintiffs are the
Os 11 prevailing party and that Respondents/Defendants/Real Party in Interest are directed to remove
mc
Bo the Sports Court and related fencing, abate the nuisance herein complained of, and restoration to
13 the prior permitted use;
@,, As to Counts Second, Third, and Fourth;
15 2. A declaration that Respondent/Defendant Crosby is in violation of Chapter 5,
16 §35.400.040.A; §35.420.040.A; and §35.442.020.4.a.(1).(c) (as to the Sports Court) and Chapter
17 35, §35.400.040.A; §35.430.070.C; and §35.430.070 Table 3-2 (as to the fencing) of the Code, ag
18 defined herein.
19 As to Counts First, Second, Third, and Fourth;
20 3 For compensatory damages in a sum to be shown at trial;
21 4 For reasonable attorney’s fees under any applicable statute, and costs and
22 expenses of litigation, according to proof;
23 5 For punitive damages in a sum to be shown at trial;
24 6 For any prejudgment or other interest according to law; and
25 7 For such other further reliefas the Court may deem just and proper.
26 DATED: June 6, 2023 FIGU iA LAW GROWP, LLP
By:
27 ames E/S, de
Tyler Sprague
28 Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiffs
Robert and Christine Schwob
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
- 13-
FIGUEROA LAW GROUP, LLP
James F. Scafide (SBN 262800)
Tyler Sprague (SBN 314626)
7 West Figueroa St., Suite 300
Santa Barbara, CA 93103
Telephone: (805) 651-3021
Facsimile: (805) 456-0740
Email Jim@Figueroa.law
Tyler@Figueroa.law
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Robert and Christine Schwob
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
) Case No.:
ROBERT SCHWOB, an individual; CHRISTINE ) VERIFICATION
10 SCHWOB, an individual
ll Petitioners and Plaintiffs,
12 Vv.
13 the COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA.
a" CALIFORNIA, a political subdivision; JEFF
CROSBY, an individual; SUSAN CROSBY.
an individual; AND DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE.
15
16 Respondents, Real Party in Interest, and
Defendants.
17
18 I, Robert Schwob declare:
19 I am a Petitioner in the above-titled action. I have read the foregoing Verified Petition for
20 Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief and know the contents thereof
21 to be true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters that are alleged on information and
22 belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
LE,
24
2S:
foregoing is true and correct.
KLARLEN Robert —
4J
26
27 Executed this / *day of June, 2023, at db, accused, Canada.
28
VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT
ets
EXHIBIT A
bledeline M. kotscts
QE 7e/- 29.203, RR
RSS
ge
e e& B.Ss
S Sa34
sty oSad
8 3 les im |O
(aasis ofaceringe- ap, Hig 202) iS Shse YRS
7a Sete Ties
TERT KR
& ° osSS fs
F egg
ES. S38eS ic jo
i
MI Is Bea
iNis ee Yery
ys
rh
Ri ie
Ip
is
©
veJy
3B 8
yta8
eS x
§&
S35
aSiS Be 3
ff se
RR ss&
R Sy ass38
23040" 2076, £0 g0-go'e
Tete
‘aSo 25:7
Vir 27"e. sese ye 8e bs
seeggere | dy gt 3} 38
Syay
88
g SSE
RSS
S
333 veat asae
Fe stsai 3, SS x Se 3S
Shere & ah
Ses sysAgs th B33e3
Bie af tikes 88 38Saas VINES
a is sysy S338
23 afse § Sane aass|
sft
:
Q 32h Se S838
AY: 8
scawo! bee hastee sce afsy se $sy FS Ase eet 3838
PROPER
IN
Vena?
ie 858
38
SESE
tak ise
SS R5e ad
Soh Seege
Fh
Sy
K 8:
igs
§ s3e = hr ge
OPERTY Ree
» SS sf SSBe 3a
38 sid
Oh
s eek
x Sas BS Fs
Preview
ELECTRONICALLY FILED FIGUEROA LAW GROUP, LLP Superior Court of California James F. Scafide (SBN 262800) County of Santa Barbara Tyler Sprague (SBN 314626) Darrel E. Parker, Executive Officer 7 West Figueroa St., Suite 300 6/6/2023 1:07 PM Santa Barbara, CA 93103 By: Terri Chavez , Deputy Telephone: (805) 651-3021 Facsimile: (805) 456-0740 Email: Jim@Figueroa.law Tyler@Figueroa.law Attorneys for Plaintiffs Robert and Christine Schwob SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA Case No.: 23CV02404 ROBERT SCHWOB, an individual; CHRISTINE 10 VERIFIED PETION FOR SCHWOB, an individual, MANDAMUS (Civil Procedure §§ Os 11 Petitioners and Plaintiffs, 1085 and 1094.5); mc COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND Bo v. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: the COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, 1 Conspiracy 13 2. Private Nuisance CALIFORNIA, a political subdivision; JEFF @,, CROSBY, an individual; SUSAN CROSBY, 3. Declaratory Relief 15 an individual; AND DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 16 Respondents and Defendants. UNLIMITED CIVIL-DAMAGES IN 17 EXCESS OF $25,000.00. 18 COME NOW Petitioners/Plaintiffs, ROBERT SCHWOB and CHRISTINE SCHWOB, 19 who Petition for alternative and peremptory writs of mandate for the COUNTY OF SANTA 20 BARBARA, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 (or in the alternative, section 21 1094.5) for the removal of an illegal and non-compliant Sports Court and adjacent fencing, 22 which the Respondents/Defendants COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA has had the opportunity 23 to have removed, and complain against Respondent/Defendant COUNTY OF SANTA 24 BARBARA, CALIFORNIA, and Real Party in Interest/Defendants JEFF CROSBY, SUSAN 25 CROSBY, and as to Does 1-50, all of the above, and allege as follows: 26 1 All allegations made in this complaint are based upon information and belief, 27 except those allegations which pertain to the named plaintiffs, which are based on personal 28 knowledge. The allegations of this complaint stated on information and belief are likely to have VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -1- evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. 2. Plaintiffs ROBERT SCHWOB and CHRISTINE SCHWOB (“Petitioner/Plaintiffs” or “Schwobs’’) bring this action as a result of Respondent/Defendant and Real Party in Interest/Defendants’ blatant disregard and interference with Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ peaceful and quiet enjoyment of their real property home, located at 1422 East Valley Road, Santa Barbara, California, 93108, and conspiracy by Respondent/Defendants County of Santa Barbara, along with Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosbys that has allowed for the continued existence of the nuisance. 3 Respondent/Defendant COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 10 (“Respondent/Defendant” or “County”) conspired with Real Party in Interest/Defendant Crosbys Os 11 in allowing for an illegal pickleball court to be installed, which facilitates the nuisance alleged mc Bo above in paragraph 2. 13 4 Real Party in Interest/Defendants JEFF CROSBY and SUSAN CROSBY @,, (collectively the “Crosbys”, “Real Party in Interest/Defendants”) have created a nuisance at a 15 property adjacent to Petitioners/Plaintiffs, located at 551 Santa Angela Lane, Santa Barbara, 16 California, 93108. (See Exhibit A, which is a map depicting the location of the two properties.) 17 5 Petitioner/Plaintiff has been, and will continue to be, seriously injured unless 18 Respondent/Defendants and Real Party in Interest/Defendants’ nuisance and other activities 19 complained of herein are not preliminarily and permanently enjoined. Petitioner/Plaintiffs will 20 suffer irreparable injury of a continuing nature that cannot be adequately calculated or 21 compensated in money damages because of this ongoing, continuous loss of quiet enjoyment of 22 their property and adverse impact on their health and wellbeing. 23 I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 24 6 This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, 25 section 410.10, and this Court has jurisdiction to issue writs of mandate pursuant to Code of 26 Civil Procedure (CCP) section 1085 and 1094.5. Venue is proper in this Court because the acts 27 and violations of law by Defendants as alleged in this Complaint occurred within the County of 28 Santa Barbara, State of California (CCP section 393). Defendants at all times mentioned in this VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -2- Complaint are residents of Santa Barbara County, within the State of California, or have transacted business within the County of Santa Barbara, State of California, or both, or are withi the meaning of Government Code § 8698. 7 Petitioners have a clear, present, and beneficial right to the performance of the enforcement of the Santa Barbara County Montecito Land Use and Development Code. 8 Petitioners have no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. 9 Petitioners have exhausted all available administrative remedies, as alleged in paragraph 40, below. 10. The property where the acts and practices described in this Complaint were, and 10 continue to be performed, is located in the County of Santa Barbara, California. Os 11 Il. PARTIES mc Bo 11. Petitioners/Plaintiffs Robert Schwob and Christine Schwob are individuals with a 13 home in the County of Santa Barbara, California. @,, 12. The title to Plaintiff’s home, located at 1422 East Valley Road, is held by 15 Petitioners/Plaintiffs. 16 13. Respondent/Defendant County of Santa Barbara is a political subdivision within 17 the meaning of California Government Code (Cal. Gov’t Code) § 8698 (a). 18 14. Petitioners/Plaintiffs filed a timely claim form submitted to the Defendant County 19 of Santa Barbara pursuant to Cal. Gov't Code, §§ 911.2(a), 945.4, but the Respondent/Defendant 20 County of Santa Barbara subsequently denied the Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ claim. A true and 21 accurate copy of the Claim Form presented by Schwobs is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 22 15. Real Party in Interest/Defendants Jeff Crosby and Susan Crosby are individuals 23 residing in the County of Santa Barbara, State of California. Petitioners/Plaintiffs are unaware as| 24 to the ownership structure of the Real Party in Interest/Defendant Crosby’s home, which is 25 located at 551 Santa Angela Lane in the County of Santa Barbara. 26 16. Whenever reference is made in the Complaint to any act of any corporate or other 27 business Defendants, that reference shall mean that the corporation or other business did the acts 28 alleged in this complaint through its officers, directors, employees, agents, and/or representatives VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -3- while acting within the actual and ostensible scope of their authority. 17. Whenever reference is made in the Complaint to any act of the Respondent/Defendant County of Santa Barbara, that reference shall mean that the Respondent/ Defendant did acts alleged in this complaint through its officers, supervisors, employees, agents, and/or representatives while acting with the actual or ostensible scope of their authority. 18. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of the defendants named herein under the fictitious names of DOES | through 50, inclusive, are unknown to plaintiffs, who therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will ask leave of Court to amend this complaint and insert the true names and capacities 10 of said defendants when the same have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and Os 11 based thereon allege, that each of the defendants designated herein as a “DOE” is legally mc Bo responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein alleged, and that plaintiff's 13 damages as alleged herein were proximately caused by such defendants. @,, 19. At all times material herein, each defendant was the agent, servant, and employee 15 of each of the remaining defendants, and acting within the purpose, scope, and course of said 16 agency, service, and employment, with the express and/or implied knowledge, permission, and 17 consent of the remaining defendants, and each of them, and each of said defendants ratified and 18 approved the acts of the other defendants. 19 Ill. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 20 20. Plaintiffs Robert and Christine Schwob purchased their home at 1422 East Valley 21 Road in January of 2020. The surrounding area, known locally as the Upper Village community, 22 is a highly valued and desirable neighborhood due to its peaceful, rural character. Plaintiffs’ 23 home, in particular, enjoys year-round use of the outdoor living area. 24 NOTICE OF VIOLATION 25 21. On or about January 26, 2022, after numerous complaints by Petitioner/Plaintiffs 26 and others in the neighborhood, Staff from the Respondent/Defendant County visited the Real 27 Party in Interest/Defendants Crosby’s property. On February 11, 2022, Respondent/Defendant 28 County wrote a “Notice of Violation” to the Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosbys, noting VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -4- that there existed a pickleball court that exceeded “the cumulative square foot maximum of 30% of the area of the rear setback of all structures in a rear setback.”! In addition, the Notice of Violation also found that a fence built surrounding the Sports Court violated sections of the Santa Barbara County Montecito Land Use and Development Code (the “Code”). The Notice of Violation identified the following sections of the Code, which were violated: Chapter 5, §35.400.040.A; §35.420.040.A; and §35.442.020.4.a.(1).(c) (as to the Sports Court) and Chapter 35, §35.400.040.A; §35.430.070.C; and §35.430.070 Table 3-2 (as to the fencing). (See Exhibit C, which is a true and accurate copy of the Notice of Violation.) 22. To remedy the violation related to the Sports Court, the County of Santa Barbara 10 indicated that the Real Party in Interest/Defendant Crosbys must either relocate the Sports Court Os 11 or remove it. To remedy the violation related to the fencing, the Respondent/Defendant County mc D3 12 of Santa Barbara recommended removing the fence, reducing its height, or applying for a permit. 13 THE SPORTS COURT @,, 15 7) 16 Ly eerste) 17 BSYod aN Co) Mad co) 18 N10 = Ss a 18 pT Ce i 19 i a yryacmerl ing bo . Ber \ 20 Prd 21 22 23 - 24 25 23. In 2020, on information and belief, a sports court (“Sports Court”) was 26 constructed without a permit on the Real Party in Interest/Defendants’ real property. The Sports 27 1 It is worth noting that the Crosbys were constructing an ADU on the premises. A second Noticd of Violation (“Second Notice”) issued on September 9, 2022, is attached as Exh it D. VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -5- Court is approximately 31 feet by 60 feet and located in the rear setback approximately 8 inches from the rear lot line and 7 feet-8 inches from the northern side lot line. On information and belief, the Sports Court was constructed by Becker Studios Construction at the direction of Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosbys. The south easterly corner of the Sports Court is raised greater than 30 inches so that the court sits level with the surrounding terrain. As such, the Sports Court is not flat work. On top of the raised footing, a ten-foot fence was constructed. A permanent basketball hoop and backboard and a pickleball net were installed. The Sports Court was later painted with lines to accommodate a pickleball court. 24. Throughout 2020, 2021, and into 2022, Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosbys 10 and their family, guests or clients played pickleball at all hours of the day and night. The noise Os 11 from the games caused disturbances to the Petitioner/Plaintiffs, whose bedroom is located less mc Bo than 30 feet away from the Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosby’s unpermitted Sports Court. 13 25. The Notice of Violation issued by the Respondent/Defendant County required that @,, the entire Sports Court be removed, which necessitated the fencing being removed, as well. 15 REAL PARTY IN INTEREST/DEFENDANTS CROSBYS RESPOND TO NOTICE 16 26. In a letter to the County of Santa Barbara, Becker Studios Construction described 17 the process for constructing the sports court, and Respondent/Defendant County took a new tone, 18 27. In apparent response to the Notice of Violation, Real Party in Interest/Defendant 19 Crosbys removed the permanent Pickleball net, painted over the stripes that designated the 20 Pickleball court, and lowered the fence height to six feet. 21 28. All the while, Real Party in Interest/Defendants continued to play pickleball by 22 putting tape down on the surface to act as boundaries in lieu of painted lines. 23 SECOND NOTICE OF VIOLATION 24 29. Petitioners/Plaintiffs once again complained to the Respondent/Defendant County 25 about continued play of Pickleball at the Real Property in Interest/Defendant Crosbys’ property. 26 30. In apparent response to Schwobs’ and other neighbors’ complaints, the 27 Respondent/Defendant County issued the Second Notice, which targeted only the existence of 28 the Sports Court. See Exhibit D. VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -6- 31. According to the Second Notice, “As it has been less than one year since the abatement of the previous similar violation, you were not provided with a courtesy notice of the complaint, and the investigation commenced immediately. We conducted a site investigation of your property on September 9, 2022 and have determined that the following violation(s) exist on your property in violation of Chapter 35 of the Santa Barbara County Code: ... Chapter 35, §35.400.040.A; §35.420.040.A; and §35.442.020.4.a.(1).(c).” (Exhibit D.) 32. At this time, the Respondent/Defendant began to take a different approach: rather than have the Sports Court removed or relocated, the County offered that the choices were to remove the Sports Court or “Convert the sports court into a patio”, stating “If you decide to 10 pursue this option, you MUST remove all lines from the surface indicative of use as a sports Os 11 court and remove the permanent tennis net.” (Exhibit D.) mc Bo 33. Instead of requiring the Sports Court to be removed or relocated, 13 Respondent/Defendant’s staff only required that the painted striping for a pickleball court be @,, removed from the surface and that the fixed pickleball net be removed. 15 34. All the while, Real Party in Interest/Defendants —with the full knowledge of the 16 Respondent/Defendant County—continued to play pickleball by putting tape down on the 17 surface to act as boundaries in lieu of painted lines and putting in place a professional grade 18 moveable Pickleball net. 19 35. This arbitrary ruling by Respondent/Defendant County, hanging on the thin 20 distinctions between a fixed and moveable net, and taped or painted lines, is where the 21 Respondent/Defendant County has colluded with the Real Party in Interest/Defendant Crosbys. 22 The Respondent/Defendant County has worked with the Real Party in Interest/Defendant 23 Crosbys in an attempt to find a way around the letter of Code and permit the unpermittable. The 24 Respondent/Defendant County has arbitrarily redefined what constitutes a sports court and is 25 now playing make-believe that this pickleball court is just a funny looking patio. 26 36. Assuming, arguendo, the height of the fencing may have abated the first violation, 27 nothing done by the Real Party in Interest/Defendants abated the cumulative square foot 28 maximum of 30% of the area of the rear setback of all structures in a rear setback. The violation VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -7- still exists today, notwithstanding numerous complaints filed by the Petitioner/Plaintiff Schwobs. Despite the requirement by the Respondent/Defendant County that all sports equipment be removed from the site, the Real Party in Interest/Defendant Crosbys continue to have a professional grade, moveable Pickleball net, pickleball court markings, and a permanent basketball hoop and backboard. PICKLEBALL NOISE 37. The playing by the Real Party in Interest/Defendants of Pickleball unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of the Schwobs’ property. Despite communications from the Schwobs to the Crosbys, informing the Crosbys of the nuisance, the Crosbys have continued to 10 play pickleball on their Sports Court. Os 11 38. Petitioner/Plaintiffs have been subjected to regular noise and disturbance mc Bo emanating from the Sports Court. The outdoor facilities are in use seven days a week, during 13 which Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ quiet enjoyment of Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ bedroom and backyard area @,, are utterly destroyed. The noises from the Sports Court, due to pickleball, are audible from the 15 interior of Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ home, interfering with Petitioner/Plaintiffs invitees’ 16 conversations and peaceful enjoyment of their home. The noise from the pickleball court, in 17 particular, is even objectionable from approximately 300 feet from the unpermitted court. 18 39. As the summer approaches and pandemic-related concerns abate, the Real Party i 19 Interest/Defendants Crosbys’ outdoor Sports Court will only gain more users and more use, 20 creating more frequent and more intrusive noise and disturbance to Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ peaceful 21 and quiet enjoyment of his home. While the Sports Court continues to exist less than 30 feet 22 from Plaintiffs’ home, the use of Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ property is substantially and irreparably 23 diminished, and Petitioner/Plaintiffs have been personally impacted by the stress and anxiety 24 caused by the constant disturbances. 25 40. Subsequent to the Respondent/Defendant County ignoring the Code violation, 26 Petitioners/Plaintiffs have written to the County of Santa Barbara Land Use Division seeking 27 redress, all such efforts were in vain. 28 // VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -8- FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Mandamus (As to Respondent/Defendant County of Santa Barbara) 41. Petitioner/Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above and below. 42. Petitioner/Plaintiffs are entitled to have portions of the Santa Barbara County Montecito Land Use and Development Code (“Code’’) enforced to protect them against nuisances. 43. Respondent/Defendant County of Santa Barbara identified violations of the Code 10 which occurred at the address of the Defendants/Real Party of Interest Crosbys’ property. Os 11 44. Respondent/Defendant County failed to enforce the provisions of the Code, mc Bo including, but not limited to, Chapter 5, §35.400.040.A; §35.420.040.A; and 13 §35.442.020.4.a.(1).(c) (as to the Sports Court) and Chapter 35, §35.400.040.A; §35.430.070.C; @,, and §35.430.070 Table 3-2 (as to the fencing). 15 45. Respondent/Defendant County’s failure to enforce the provisions of the Code as 16 set forth above allow for a continuing nuisance to occur. 17 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 18 Conspiracy 19 (As to All Defendants) 20 46. Petitioners/Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above and 21 below. 22 47. Because Respondent/Defendant County of Santa Barbara issued the Notice of 23 Violation to the Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosby, at all times relevant herein 24 Respondent/Defendant County was aware that Defendants/Real Party in Interest Crosby had 25 installed an unpermitted and illegal Sport Court, in violation of the Code. 26 48. Additionally, because Petitioners/Plaintiffs made numerous complaints to 27 Respondent/Defendant County regarding the nuisance and unpermitted Sport Court, at all times 28 relevant herein Respondent/Defendant County was aware that Real Party in Interest/Defendants VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -9- Crosby were creating a public and private nuisance. 49. At all times beginning in February of 2022, Respondent/Defendants County acted in cooperation and conspiracy with Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosbys in allowing for an illegal pickleball court to exist. 50. In allowing an illegal and unpermitted pickleball court to exist, Respondent/Defendant County advised, consented, looked the other way, overlooked violations, and generally assisted Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosbys to have in existence an unpermitted and illegal pickleball court. 51. Because of the existence of the pickleball court, and the noise emanating 10 therefrom, the Petitioner/Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer damages. Os 11 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION mc Bo Private Nuisance 13 (As to Defendants JEFF CROSBY and SUSAN CROSBY) @,, 52. Petitioner/Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above and 15 below. 16 53. Pursuant to Civil Code sections 3479 et. seq, Petitioner/Plaintiff brings this civil 17 action for private nuisance. 18 54. The unpermitted and illegal construction and use of the Sport Court by the Real 19 Party in Interest/Defendant Crosbys has created an unreasonable and substantial interference 20 with Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their property. 21 55. The illegal and unpermitted construction of the Sport Court within the setback 22 area violates Chapter 5, §35.400.040.A; §35.420.040.A; and §35.442.020.4.a.(1).(c) of the Code, 23 constituting a nuisance, per se. 24 56. The illegal and unpermitted construction of fencing violate Chapter 35, 25 §35.400.040.A; §35.430.070.C; and §35.430.070 Table 3-2 of the Code, constituting a nuisance, 26 per se. 27 57. Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosbys’ operation of the Sports Court, located 28 approximately thirty (30) feet from Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ bedroom window, has caused, and VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 10- continues to cause Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ invitees extreme discomfort and annoyance and significantly affects Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ ability to use their property, both inside and out. The noise and disturbances impact their invitees’ enjoyment of their home, and refrain from the use of their side yard and bedroom to get away from the noise. 58. The noise from the pickleball courts is so intrusive, it is even objectionable from a| distance of approximately 300 feet from the courts. Petitioners/Plaintiffs are concerned about the health risks associated with the stress, upset and annoyance, and long-term exposure to the excessive noise and disturbance levels created by the games played on the Sports Court. 59. The condition of Real Party in Interest/Defendants’ property that each of them, 10 negligently and/or intentionally caused to exist constitute a nuisance within, but not limited to, Os 11 the meaning of Civil Code, section 3479, et seq., in that said conditions were and are injurious to mc Bo the health and safety of Petitioners/Plaintiffs, indecent and offensive to the senses of 13 Petitioners/Plaintiffs, and did and continue to interfere substantially with Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ @,, comfortable enjoyment of the Property. 15 60. Such nuisances have been, and are ongoing. 16 61. The gravity of the harm caused by the Real Party in Interest/Defendants to the 17 Petitioner/Plaintiffs, essentially rendering their home and yard unusable, far outweighs any social 18 utility which might be gained from the use ofthe Sport Court. 19 62. Petitioners/Plaintiffs have not consented, or in any way approved of the use of the 20 Sports Court by Real Party in Interest/Defendants, their members, or the general public at large. 21 The Sport Court was constructed well after Petitioners/Plaintiffs acquired title to their real 22 property. 23 63. The defective conditions at Real Party in Interest/Defendants’ property constitute 24 a nuisance and unreasonably and substantially deprive Petitioner/Plaintiffs of the safe, healthy, 25 and comfortable use of their property. 26 64. Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosbys have failed to adequately abate the 27 nuisance as required by law and continue to operate the Sports Court. 28 // VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF -1l- 65. Petitioners/Plaintiffs have no plain, adequate, or speedy remedy at law in that Real Party in Interest/Defendants Crosbys continue to violate the relevant provisions of the Code. It would be difficult or impossible to determine monetary damages for the ongoing nuisance. 66. The harm to the Petitioners/Plaintiffs, as described herein, outweighs the removal and disuse of the unpermitted Sport Court, which due to the Notices of Violation and lack of permit should not be used in any case. 67. Petitioners/Plaintiffs have a high likelihood of successes in the matter as a reasonable person would find the noise and disturbances of the Sport Court to be an unreasonable interreference with Petitioners/Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment of their real property. 10 Further, this matter may be a per se nuisance. Os 11 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION mc Bo Declaratory Relief 13 (As to Respondent COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA and @,, Real Party in Interest JEFF CROSBY and SUSAN CROSBY) 15 68. Petitioner/Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above and 16 below. 17 69. An actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating the 18 Petitioner/Plaintiffs’ rights or obligations has arisen. 19 70. Petitioner/Plaintiff is entitled to have portions of the Code enforced to protect 20 them against nuisances. 21 71. Respondent/Defendant County of Santa Barbara’s identified violations of the 22 Code which occurred at the address of the Defendants/Real Party of Interest Crosbys’ property. 23 72. Respondent/Defendant County failed to enforce the provisions of the Code, 24 including, but not limited to, Chapter 5, §35.400.040.A; §35.420.040.A; and 25 §35.442.020.4.a.(1).(c) (as to the Sports Court) and Chapter 35, §35.400.040.A; §35.430.070.C; 26 and §35.430.070 Table 3-2 (as to the fencing). 27 73. Respondent/Defendant County failure to enforce the provisions of the Code as set 28 forth above allow for a continuing nuisance to occur. VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 12- 74. Petitioner/Plaintiff requests that this Court find that Respondent/Defendant CROSBY is in violation of Chapter 5, §35.400.040.A; §35.420.040.A; and §35.442.020.4.a.(1).(c) (as to the Sports Court) and Chapter 35, §35.400.040.A; §35.430.070.C; and §35.430.070 Table 3-2 (as to the fencing) of the Code, as defined herein. IV. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Petitioners/Plaintiffs prays for judgment against Respondent/Defendants/Real Party in Interest, jointly and severally, on each cause of action, as follows: As to Count First; 10 1 For injunctive relief, including a declaration that Petitioners/Plaintiffs are the Os 11 prevailing party and that Respondents/Defendants/Real Party in Interest are directed to remove mc Bo the Sports Court and related fencing, abate the nuisance herein complained of, and restoration to 13 the prior permitted use; @,, As to Counts Second, Third, and Fourth; 15 2. A declaration that Respondent/Defendant Crosby is in violation of Chapter 5, 16 §35.400.040.A; §35.420.040.A; and §35.442.020.4.a.(1).(c) (as to the Sports Court) and Chapter 17 35, §35.400.040.A; §35.430.070.C; and §35.430.070 Table 3-2 (as to the fencing) of the Code, ag 18 defined herein. 19 As to Counts First, Second, Third, and Fourth; 20 3 For compensatory damages in a sum to be shown at trial; 21 4 For reasonable attorney’s fees under any applicable statute, and costs and 22 expenses of litigation, according to proof; 23 5 For punitive damages in a sum to be shown at trial; 24 6 For any prejudgment or other interest according to law; and 25 7 For such other further reliefas the Court may deem just and proper. 26 DATED: June 6, 2023 FIGU iA LAW GROWP, LLP By: 27 ames E/S, de Tyler Sprague 28 Attorneys for Petitioner/Plaintiffs Robert and Christine Schwob VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 13- FIGUEROA LAW GROUP, LLP James F. Scafide (SBN 262800) Tyler Sprague (SBN 314626) 7 West Figueroa St., Suite 300 Santa Barbara, CA 93103 Telephone: (805) 651-3021 Facsimile: (805) 456-0740 Email Jim@Figueroa.law Tyler@Figueroa.law Attorneys for Plaintiffs Robert and Christine Schwob SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ) Case No.: ROBERT SCHWOB, an individual; CHRISTINE ) VERIFICATION 10 SCHWOB, an individual ll Petitioners and Plaintiffs, 12 Vv. 13 the COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA. a" CALIFORNIA, a political subdivision; JEFF CROSBY, an individual; SUSAN CROSBY. an individual; AND DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE. 15 16 Respondents, Real Party in Interest, and Defendants. 17 18 I, Robert Schwob declare: 19 I am a Petitioner in the above-titled action. I have read the foregoing Verified Petition for 20 Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Damages and Injunctive Relief and know the contents thereof 21 to be true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters that are alleged on information and 22 belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the LE, 24 2S: foregoing is true and correct. KLARLEN Robert — 4J 26 27 Executed this / *day of June, 2023, at db, accused, Canada. 28 VERIFIED PETITION AND COMPLAINT ets EXHIBIT A bledeline M. kotscts QE 7e/- 29.203, RR RSS ge e e& B.Ss S Sa34 sty oSad 8 3 les im |O (aasis ofaceringe- ap, Hig 202) iS Shse YRS 7a Sete Ties TERT KR & ° osSS fs F egg ES. S38eS ic jo i MI Is Bea iNis ee Yery ys rh Ri ie Ip is © veJy 3B 8 yta8 eS x §& S35 aSiS Be 3 ff se RR ss& R Sy ass38 23040" 2076, £0 g0-go'e Tete ‘aSo 25:7 Vir 27"e. sese ye 8e bs seeggere | dy gt 3} 38 Syay 88 g SSE RSS S 333 veat asae Fe stsai 3, SS x Se 3S Shere & ah Ses sysAgs th B33e3 Bie af tikes 88 38Saas VINES a is sysy S338 23 afse § Sane aass| sft : Q 32h Se S838 AY: 8 scawo! bee hastee sce afsy se $sy FS Ase eet 3838 PROPER IN Vena? ie 858 38 SESE tak ise SS R5e ad Soh Seege Fh Sy K 8: igs § s3e = hr ge OPERTY Ree » SS sf SSBe 3a 38 sid Oh s eek x Sas BS Fs