Preview
1 RACHEL VAN MULLEM, COUNTY COUNSEL
CHRISTINE M. MONROE, DEPUTY (Bar No. 304573)
2 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
105 E. Anapamu St., Suite 201
3 Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2955 / FAX: (805) 568-2982
4 E-mail: cmonroe@countyofsb.org
5 Attorneys for Defendant
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
6
7
Exempt from filing fees [Gov. Code, § 6103]
8
9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA (ANACAPA DIVISION)
11
12 ROBERT SCHWOB, an individual; Case No.: 23CV02404
CHRISTINE SCHWOB, an individual
13
Petitioners and Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SANTA
14
BARBARA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
15 MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF
v. PLAINTIFFS ROBERT AND CHRISTINE
16 SCHWOB’S FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED
The COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, PETITION FOR MANDAMUS;
17 CALIFORNIA, a political subdivision; COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
18 JEFF CROSBY, an individual; SUSAN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CROSBY, an individual; AND DOES 1-
19 50, INCLUSIVE,
20 Respondents and Defendants. Assigned to Hon. Thomas P. Anderle
Complaint filed: June 6, 2023
21
22
Date: December 20, 2023
23 Time: 10:00 a.m.
Dept. SB3
24
25
26
27
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
1
1 TO ALL PARTIES OF RECORD AND THEIR ATTORNEYS:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on December, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter
3 as the matter may be heard, in Department SB3 of the above entitled Court, located at 1100
4 Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara, California, defendant County of Santa Barbara (“County”) will
5 and hereby does move for an order striking the following from plaintiffs and petitioners Robert
6 and Christine Schwob (“Schwobs”) First Amended Petition and Complaint (“Petition”) as
7 against the County:
8 • Paragraph 7 of the Prayer, appearing on page 19 of the Petition, as to all
9 counts: “For punitive damages in a sum to be shown at trial.”
10 This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 436(a)-(b), and
11 431.10(b)(2)-(3), 431.10(c), and Government Code section 818. This motion is based upon this
12 Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the
13 accompanying Declaration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5(a), all pleadings
14 on file in this action, and any argument made or evidence introduced at the hearing on this
15 motion.
16
17 Dated: November 13, 2023 RACHEL VAN MULLEM
COUNTY COUNSEL
18
19 By: __________________________
Christine M. Monroe
20 Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for Defendant
21 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
22
23
24
25
26
27
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
2.
1
I. INTRODUCTION
2
Settled California law affords public entities immunity from liability for punitive
3
damages. (California Government Code § 818.) The County of Santa Barbara (“County”)
4
requests that the Court strike the prayer for relief for punitive damages, as against the County,
5
from the First Amended Petition and Complaint (“Petition”) of Plaintiffs and petitioners Robert
6
and Christine Schwob (“Schwobs”). This motion is filed together with the County’s demurrer
7
to the Petition. Even if the Petition survives demurrer, the Schwobs are not entitled to relief for
8
punitive damages against the County as a matter of law. For the reasons below, Paragraph 7 of
9
the prayer for relief for punitive damages against the County should be stricken.
10
II. STATEMENT OF ALLEGED FACTS
11
A complete set of alleged facts are set forth in the accompanying demurrer, but are
12
briefly summarized here. The Schwobs own a home in Montecito that shares a property line
13
with real party in interest/defendants Jeff and Susan Crosby (“Crosbys”). (Petition at p. 3-4, ¶¶
14
15, 20.) In January 2022, the County received a complaint regarding a pickleball court on the
15
Crosbys’ property. (Id. at p. 6-7, ¶ 28 & Ex. C.) The County issued two, successive notices of
16
violation relating to the developments constructed by the Crosbys. The County determined that
17
the Crosbys abated the violations by removing the permanent pickleball court fixtures, although
18
they still play pickleball using a moveable net and other temporary equipment. (Id., Ex. I.)
19
The Schwobs filed this lawsuit alleging that the County abused its discretion relating to
20
the notices of violation and conspired with the Crosbys to allow them to play pickleball after
21
issuing the notices of violation. The Schwobs bring causes of action for mandamus, conspiracy,
22
and declaratory relief against the County, which are also part of the County’s demurrer. In their
23
prayer for relief, they seek punitive damages on all causes of action against the County. (Petition
24
at p. 19, ¶ 7.)
25
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
26
A motion to strike may be used to reach defects in or objections to pleadings that are
27
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101 not challengeable by demurrer. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 435(a)(2).) It may be used to attack the
(805) 568-2950
28
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
3.
1 entire pleading, or any part thereof, to strike “irrelevant, false, or improper matter” or any part
2 that is not “in conformity with the laws of this state…” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 436; Baral v.
3 Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 393-394.) Like a demurrer, the grounds for a motion to strike must
4 appear on the face of the pleading or upon matters which may be judicially noticed. (Code of
5 Civ. Proc. § 437.) In ruling on the motion, “judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a
6 motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.” (Clauson v.
7 Sup.Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.)
8 A motion to strike may lie where a plaintiff lacks support for an award of punitive
9 damages as a matter of law. (Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Sup.Ct. (Doe) (2021) 64
10 Cal.App.5th 549, aff’d, 14 Cal. 5th 758 (2023) [Overturning trial court’s denial of a motion to
11 strike punitive damages.].) California Government Code section 818 precludes liability of a
12 public entity for exemplary or punitive damages. “[A] plaintiff who alleges injury caused by a
13 public entity may be entitled to actual damages for that injury, but not punitive damages.” (Los
14 Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. Superior Ct., supra, 64 Cal. App. 5th at 567, citing Kizer v. Cnty.
15 of San Mateo (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 139, 145, as modified (Mar. 28, 1991).) Therefore, the Schwobs
16 are barred as a matter of law from recovering punitive damages against the County.
17 IV. CONCLUSION
18 Based on the foregoing, the County requests that the Court strike Paragraph 7 of the
19 Prayer, appearing on page 19 of the Petition, as to the County on all counts: “For punitive
20 damages in a sum to be shown at trial.”
21
Dated: November 13, 2023 Respectfully submitted,
22
RACHEL VAN MULLEM
23 COUNTY COUNSEL
24
By: __________________________
25 Christine M. Monroe
Deputy County Counsel
26 Attorneys for Defendant
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
27
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 568-2950
28
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF AMENDED COMPLAINT
4.
PROOF OF SERVICE
1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
2 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of
3 eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 105 East
Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, California.
4
On November 13, 2023, I served a true copy of the within DEFENDANT COUNTY OF
5 SANTA BARBARA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE
PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT AND CHRISTINE SCHWOB’S FIRST
6 AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION FOR MANDAMUS; COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF on the Interested Parties in this action by:
7
by mail to the person(s) indicted below. I am familiar with the practice of the Office of
8 Santa Barbara County Counsel for the collection and processing of correspondence for
mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with the ordinary course of
9
business, the above-mentioned document would have been deposited with the United States
10 Postal Service, after having been deposited and processed for postage with the County of
Santa Barbara Central Mail Room.
11
via personal service to the person(s) indicated below.
12
via Federal Express delivery services company to the person(s) indicated below.
13
14 by e-mail or electronic transmission. I caused the document(s) to be sent from e-mail
address dsjovold@countyofsb.org, to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the below. I
15 did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or
other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
16
17 FIGUEROA LAW GROUP
James F. Scafide, Esq., Jim@Figueroa.law, (Attorney for Plaintiff)
18
REICKER, PFAU, PYLE & McROY LLP
19 Robert B. Forouzandeh, rforouzandeh@rppmh.com, Attorney for Defendants Jeff and
Susan Crosby
20 Melissa Rapp, mrapp@rppmh.com, Attorney for Defendants Jeff and Susan Crosby
21
by depositing it in the United States Mail in a sealed envelope with postage thereon
22 fully prepaid to the following to the person(s) indicated below.
23 (State) I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the above is true and correct.
24 (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the
25 Bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made.
26 Executed on November 13, 2023, at Santa Barbara, California.
27
COUNTY COUNSEL
County of Santa Barbara
105 East Anapamu Street
____________________
Santa Barbara, CA 93101 D’Ann K. Sjovold
(805) 568-2950
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
1 RACHEL VAN MULLEM, COUNTY COUNSEL CHRISTINE M. MONROE, DEPUTY (Bar No. 304573) 2 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 105 E. Anapamu St., Suite 201 3 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2955 / FAX: (805) 568-2982 4 E-mail: cmonroe@countyofsb.org 5 Attorneys for Defendant COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 6 7 Exempt from filing fees [Gov. Code, § 6103] 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA (ANACAPA DIVISION) 11 12 ROBERT SCHWOB, an individual; Case No.: 23CV02404 CHRISTINE SCHWOB, an individual 13 Petitioners and Plaintiffs, DEFENDANT COUNTY OF SANTA 14 BARBARA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND 15 MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF v. PLAINTIFFS ROBERT AND CHRISTINE 16 SCHWOB’S FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED The COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, PETITION FOR MANDAMUS; 17 CALIFORNIA, a political subdivision; COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 18 JEFF CROSBY, an individual; SUSAN INJUNCTIVE RELIEF CROSBY, an individual; AND DOES 1- 19 50, INCLUSIVE, 20 Respondents and Defendants. Assigned to Hon. Thomas P. Anderle Complaint filed: June 6, 2023 21 22 Date: December 20, 2023 23 Time: 10:00 a.m. Dept. SB3 24 25 26 27 COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF AMENDED COMPLAINT 1 1 TO ALL PARTIES OF RECORD AND THEIR ATTORNEYS: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on December, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. or as soon thereafter 3 as the matter may be heard, in Department SB3 of the above entitled Court, located at 1100 4 Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara, California, defendant County of Santa Barbara (“County”) will 5 and hereby does move for an order striking the following from plaintiffs and petitioners Robert 6 and Christine Schwob (“Schwobs”) First Amended Petition and Complaint (“Petition”) as 7 against the County: 8 • Paragraph 7 of the Prayer, appearing on page 19 of the Petition, as to all 9 counts: “For punitive damages in a sum to be shown at trial.” 10 This motion is made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 436(a)-(b), and 11 431.10(b)(2)-(3), 431.10(c), and Government Code section 818. This motion is based upon this 12 Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the 13 accompanying Declaration pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5(a), all pleadings 14 on file in this action, and any argument made or evidence introduced at the hearing on this 15 motion. 16 17 Dated: November 13, 2023 RACHEL VAN MULLEM COUNTY COUNSEL 18 19 By: __________________________ Christine M. Monroe 20 Deputy County Counsel Attorneys for Defendant 21 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 22 23 24 25 26 27 COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF AMENDED COMPLAINT 2. 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Settled California law affords public entities immunity from liability for punitive 3 damages. (California Government Code § 818.) The County of Santa Barbara (“County”) 4 requests that the Court strike the prayer for relief for punitive damages, as against the County, 5 from the First Amended Petition and Complaint (“Petition”) of Plaintiffs and petitioners Robert 6 and Christine Schwob (“Schwobs”). This motion is filed together with the County’s demurrer 7 to the Petition. Even if the Petition survives demurrer, the Schwobs are not entitled to relief for 8 punitive damages against the County as a matter of law. For the reasons below, Paragraph 7 of 9 the prayer for relief for punitive damages against the County should be stricken. 10 II. STATEMENT OF ALLEGED FACTS 11 A complete set of alleged facts are set forth in the accompanying demurrer, but are 12 briefly summarized here. The Schwobs own a home in Montecito that shares a property line 13 with real party in interest/defendants Jeff and Susan Crosby (“Crosbys”). (Petition at p. 3-4, ¶¶ 14 15, 20.) In January 2022, the County received a complaint regarding a pickleball court on the 15 Crosbys’ property. (Id. at p. 6-7, ¶ 28 & Ex. C.) The County issued two, successive notices of 16 violation relating to the developments constructed by the Crosbys. The County determined that 17 the Crosbys abated the violations by removing the permanent pickleball court fixtures, although 18 they still play pickleball using a moveable net and other temporary equipment. (Id., Ex. I.) 19 The Schwobs filed this lawsuit alleging that the County abused its discretion relating to 20 the notices of violation and conspired with the Crosbys to allow them to play pickleball after 21 issuing the notices of violation. The Schwobs bring causes of action for mandamus, conspiracy, 22 and declaratory relief against the County, which are also part of the County’s demurrer. In their 23 prayer for relief, they seek punitive damages on all causes of action against the County. (Petition 24 at p. 19, ¶ 7.) 25 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 26 A motion to strike may be used to reach defects in or objections to pleadings that are 27 COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 not challengeable by demurrer. (Code of Civ. Proc. § 435(a)(2).) It may be used to attack the (805) 568-2950 28 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF AMENDED COMPLAINT 3. 1 entire pleading, or any part thereof, to strike “irrelevant, false, or improper matter” or any part 2 that is not “in conformity with the laws of this state…” (Code of Civ. Proc. § 436; Baral v. 3 Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal.5th 376, 393-394.) Like a demurrer, the grounds for a motion to strike must 4 appear on the face of the pleading or upon matters which may be judicially noticed. (Code of 5 Civ. Proc. § 437.) In ruling on the motion, “judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a 6 motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.” (Clauson v. 7 Sup.Ct. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1253, 1255.) 8 A motion to strike may lie where a plaintiff lacks support for an award of punitive 9 damages as a matter of law. (Los Angeles Unified School Dist. v. Sup.Ct. (Doe) (2021) 64 10 Cal.App.5th 549, aff’d, 14 Cal. 5th 758 (2023) [Overturning trial court’s denial of a motion to 11 strike punitive damages.].) California Government Code section 818 precludes liability of a 12 public entity for exemplary or punitive damages. “[A] plaintiff who alleges injury caused by a 13 public entity may be entitled to actual damages for that injury, but not punitive damages.” (Los 14 Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. Superior Ct., supra, 64 Cal. App. 5th at 567, citing Kizer v. Cnty. 15 of San Mateo (1991) 53 Cal. 3d 139, 145, as modified (Mar. 28, 1991).) Therefore, the Schwobs 16 are barred as a matter of law from recovering punitive damages against the County. 17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 Based on the foregoing, the County requests that the Court strike Paragraph 7 of the 19 Prayer, appearing on page 19 of the Petition, as to the County on all counts: “For punitive 20 damages in a sum to be shown at trial.” 21 Dated: November 13, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 22 RACHEL VAN MULLEM 23 COUNTY COUNSEL 24 By: __________________________ 25 Christine M. Monroe Deputy County Counsel 26 Attorneys for Defendant COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 27 COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 105 East Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 (805) 568-2950 28 COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF AMENDED COMPLAINT 4. PROOF OF SERVICE 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA 2 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of 3 eighteen years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is 105 East Anapamu Street, Santa Barbara, California. 4 On November 13, 2023, I served a true copy of the within DEFENDANT COUNTY OF 5 SANTA BARBARA’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS ROBERT AND CHRISTINE SCHWOB’S FIRST 6 AMENDED VERIFIED PETITION FOR MANDAMUS; COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF on the Interested Parties in this action by: 7 by mail to the person(s) indicted below. I am familiar with the practice of the Office of 8 Santa Barbara County Counsel for the collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In accordance with the ordinary course of 9 business, the above-mentioned document would have been deposited with the United States 10 Postal Service, after having been deposited and processed for postage with the County of Santa Barbara Central Mail Room. 11 via personal service to the person(s) indicated below. 12 via Federal Express delivery services company to the person(s) indicated below. 13 14 by e-mail or electronic transmission. I caused the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address dsjovold@countyofsb.org, to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the below. I 15 did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. 16 17 FIGUEROA LAW GROUP James F. Scafide, Esq., Jim@Figueroa.law, (Attorney for Plaintiff) 18 REICKER, PFAU, PYLE & McROY LLP 19 Robert B. Forouzandeh, rforouzandeh@rppmh.com, Attorney for Defendants Jeff and Susan Crosby 20 Melissa Rapp, mrapp@rppmh.com, Attorney for Defendants Jeff and Susan Crosby 21 by depositing it in the United States Mail in a sealed envelope with postage thereon 22 fully prepaid to the following to the person(s) indicated below. 23 (State) I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the above is true and correct. 24 (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the 25 Bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. 26 Executed on November 13, 2023, at Santa Barbara, California. 27 COUNTY COUNSEL County of Santa Barbara 105 East Anapamu Street ____________________ Santa Barbara, CA 93101 D’Ann K. Sjovold (805) 568-2950 28 PROOF OF SERVICE