Tentative Ruling: Mystica Fleury vs Byron Richard Tarnutzer et al
Case Number
22CV02886
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Fri, 03/27/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
Motion: Leave
Tentative Ruling
For the reasons stated herein, the motion of defendants for leave to file a cross-complaint is ordered off-calendar, without prejudice to its resetting upon the entry of an order lifting the stay of these proceedings.
Background:
The third amended complaint (TAC) filed in this action on May 21, 2025, by plaintiff Mystica Fleury against defendants Byron Richard Tarnutzer aka Rick Tarnutzer (R Tarnutzer), Vonna Carol Tarnutzer (V Tarnutzer) (collectively, the Tarnutzers), and American Interior, is the operative pleading. The TAC alleges ten causes of action: (1) breach of contract - services (against all defendants); (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (against all defendants); (3) violation of the Contractors State License Law (against all defendants); (4) negligence – construction defect (against all defendants); (5) concealment/fraud (against all defendants); (6) unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices (against all defendants); (7) accounting (against all defendants); (8) breach of contract – loan agreement (against R Tarnutzer only); (9) false promise – loan agreement (against R Tarnutzer only); and (10) common counts – money had and received (against R Tarnutzer only).
Briefly, and as alleged in the operative TAC, plaintiff asserts that she paid the amount of $1,492,066.09 to defendants for a design and construction project at 546 Owen Road in Santa Barbara, California, which is not complete and which was left in a defective condition. The TAC further alleges that defendants failed to disclose to plaintiff that they did not have a valid contractor’s license; improperly charged plaintiff a fee for acting as general contractor; failed to pay their subcontractors despite plaintiff paying defendants for subcontracted work at the subject project; failed to obtain necessary permits for the project; and refused to provide to plaintiff a complete accounting of income and expenses on the project upon plaintiff’s request.
The TAC also alleges that plaintiff loaned to R Tarnutzer, the sum of $1,250,000 and, in May of 2021, the additional sum of $500,000, which R Tarnutzer has failed to pay pursuant to the terms of a promissory note executed by R Tarnutzer in favor of plaintiff, in the amount of $1,750,000.
On June 20, 2025, the Tarnutzers filed their answer to the TAC, generally denying its allegations and asserting twenty-two affirmative defenses.
On October 28, 2025, the Tarnutzers filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint (the motion for leave). Plaintiff opposes that motion, which was originally calendared for hearing on February 13, 2026.
Pursuant to the minute order issued on February 13, 2026, the court continued the hearing on the motion for leave to permit the Tarnutzers an opportunity to, on or before February 20, 2026, file papers relative to that motion which appeared to be missing from the court’s file, and, if appropriate, to provide plaintiff an opportunity to respond to those papers.
On February 18, 2026, the court signed and entered an order upon a stipulation by the parties filed on that day, staying all party-litigant activities and discovery in these proceedings, subject to any appropriate motion for relief from stay that may be filed upon fourteen days’ written notice. Pursuant to the terms of the court’s February 18, 2026, order, the stay is without prejudice to the motion for leave which will be continued and reset upon the court lifting the stay.
Analysis:
For all reasons discussed above, and consistent with the court’s February 18, 2026, order staying these proceedings as to any party-litigant activities, the court will order the motion for leave off calendar, without prejudice to that motion being reset for hearing upon the entry of any order lifting the stay. As further discussed in the court’s February 13, 2026, minute order and above, the Tarnutzers were to file certain papers relative to the motion for leave prior to the continued hearing. As court records reflect that those papers were not filed by the Tarnutzers before the court entered its February 18, 2026, order staying all party-litigant activities, the filing of those papers by the Tarnutzers will need be addressed upon the motion for leave being reset for hearing.