Tentative Ruling: Jana Zimmer vs County of Santa Barbara et al
Case Number
24CV00199
Case Type
Hearing Date / Time
Mon, 05/18/2026 - 10:00
Nature of Proceedings
CMC; Motion for Trial Preference
Tentative Ruling
Jana Zimmer, etc., v. County of Santa Barbara, et al.
Case No. 24CV00199
Hearing Date: May 18, 2026
HEARING: Motion of Plaintiff for Trial Preference
ATTORNEYS: For Petitioner Jana Zimmer, individually and as Trustee of the Solomon-Zimmer Living Trust: Richard C. Solomon
For Respondents County of Santa Barbara, Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara, Lisa Plowman, Rob Hazard, Travis Seawards, and Das Williams, as Supervisor: Rachel Van Mullem, Callie Kim, Office of the County Counsel
TENTATIVE RULING:
The motion of plaintiff Jana Zimmer for trial preference is denied. Counsel are to be prepared to discuss at the hearing of this motion a motion and trial schedule consistent with the discussion herein.
Background:
This proceeding arises from the efforts of petitioner and plaintiff Jana Zimmer, individually and as Trustee of the Solomon-Zimmer Living Trust (in all capacities, Zimmer) to obtain a lot split of her parcel of real property from respondent and defendant County of Santa Barbara (County).
(Note: The operative pleading is both a complaint and a petition. This hearing involves only Zimmer’s petition for issuance of a writ of mandate. Where appropriate, the court will refer to the pleading herein as a petition, and the parties as petitioner and respondents, respectively.)
(1) Procedural History
On January 16, 2024, Zimmer filed her original petition in this matter asserting seven causes of action: (1) violations of the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code, § 65920 et seq.); (2) writ of mandate and damages for violations of Government Code section 66411.7; (3) for writ of mandate and damages for violations of Government Code section 65589.5 et seq.; (4) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (5) declaratory judgment re violations of Government Code sections 65913.4, subdivision (a)(6)(D), and 66411.7, subdivision (a)(3)(c); (6) writ of mandate, damages, and penalties for violation of the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, §§ 65913.4, subd. (a)(6)(D), 65589.5, subds. (j)(2)(B), (j)(4), (k)(1)(A)(ii)); (7) writ of mandate and damages for violations of the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code, § 6250 et seq.).
On March 12, 2024, defendants filed their demurrer as to each of the causes of action of the complaint and concurrently filed a motion to strike. On July 1, 2024, the court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend as to each cause of action and ordered the motion to strike off calendar as moot.
On August 9, 2024, Zimmer filed her first amended petition (FAP). The FAP asserts five causes of action: (1) violations of the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code, § 65920 et seq.); (2) writ of mandate and damages for violations of Government Code section 66411.7; (3) for writ of mandate and damages for violations of Government Code section 65589.5 et seq.; (4) breach of written contract, tortious breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (5) declaratory judgment. Defendants in this action are the County, the Board of Supervisors of County (Board of Supervisors), Supervisor Das Williams, Planning Director Lisa Plowman, Deputy Planning Director Travis Seawards, and Fire Marshal Rob Hazard. The first, second, third, fourth (for damages), and fifth causes of action are asserted against all defendants; the fourth cause of action (for punitive damages) is asserted against Williams, Hazard, Plowman, and Seawards.
On February 24, 2025, the court sustained the demurrer as to the first and third causes of action without leave to amend, sustained the demurrer as to individual respondents without leave to amend, overruled the demurrer as to the second and fifth causes of action as to all respondents, and overruled the demurrer as to the fourth cause of action as to County.
On March 3, 2025, Zimmer filed supplemental allegations in support of the fourth cause of action against the individual respondents.
On June 3, 2025, the court entered its order on the stipulation of the parties bifurcating and addressing in phase 1 of trial Zimmer’s petition for writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 for violations of Government Code section 66411.7, and leaving for phase 2 the two remaining claims for breach of contract and for declaratory relief.
On June 16, 2025, the court granted respondents’ motion to strike the supplemental allegations filed on March 3. The court also clarified its February 24 order that the demurrer to the fourth cause of action was sustained as to individual respondent Das Williams with leave to amend and that the amended complaint must be filed by June 30. No amended complaint was filed by Zimmer pursuant to this leave to amend.
On July 2, 2025, respondents filed their answer to the FAP, admitting and denying allegations thereof and asserting 21 affirmative defenses.
On January 30, 2026, the court held a hearing on phase 1 of trial in this matter, finding in favor of County and against Zimmer.
On February 4, 2026, Zimmer filed this motion for trial preference. Also on February 4, Zimmer filed a proposed statement of decision or alternatively a request to correct the court’s tentative decision on phase 1 of trial.
On February 20, 2026, the court held case management conference and heard argument concerning Zimmer’s objections to the statement of decision. The court took the objections under advisement and continued the case management conference to this hearing date.
On March 9, 2026, the court filed its statement of decision as to phase 1 of trial.
On May 5, 2026, County filed its notice of non-opposition to Zimmer’s motion for trial preference. Nonetheless, County disputes a number of assertion statements made by Zimmer in the motion.
(2) Motion for Trial Preference
In support of the motion for trial preference, Zimmer declares that she is 79 years old and that her health began to deteriorate in fall of 2024. (Zimmer decl., ¶ 1-2.) Zimmer underwent an emergency quadruple bypass on February 7, 2025. (Zimmer decl., ¶ 2.) Among other things, Zimmer is very anxious about her ability to recall specifics when she is able to testify in this case. (Ibid.)
Analysis:
“A party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following findings:
“(1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole.
“(2) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (a).)
“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court may in its discretion grant a motion for preference that is supported by a showing that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting this preference.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (e).)
“Upon the granting of such a motion for preference, the court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days from that date and there shall be no continuance beyond 120 days from the granting of the motion for preference except for physical disability of a party or a party’s attorney, or upon a showing of good cause stated in the record. Any continuance shall be for no more than 15 days and no more than one continuance for physical disability may be granted to any party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (f).)
Although County has filed a notice that it does not oppose this motion, the court must make findings to support such a motion. Although there is no dispute that Zimmer is over 70 and has a substantial interest in the action as a whole, considering the evidence presented, Zimmer does not make an adequate showing that her health is such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation or that the interests of justice will be served by granting this preference. Consequently, the court will deny the motion for trial preference alternatively under subdivisions (a) and (e).
Significantly, the court notes that trial in this action has already begun by the bifurcated trial of the second cause of action for writ of mandate. As a result, the effect of preference under section 36, subdivision (f), is limited. Zimmer’s first and third causes of action have been resolved by the sustaining of demurrer as to all defendants. The remaining causes of action are the fourth (breach of contract) and fifth (declaratory relief) causes of action. Both parties have stated their intention to file motions for summary judgment/ summary adjudication. (Plaintiff’s Case Management Statement, filed May 4, 2026, p. 7; Defendants’ Notice of Non-Opposition, filed May 5, 2026, p. 2 [requesting trial date 30 days after hearing on motion].) The court expects and intends to set a briefing and trial schedule that accommodates both the motions intended by the parties with trial, to the extent necessary, following shortly after.