Skip to main content.

PUBLIC NOTICE Reduced Hours of Operation – Clerk’s Offices

From December 22, 2025 – January 2, 2026, The Superior Court of California, County of Santa Barbara, will reduce phone hours and the public access operating hours of the Clerk’s Offices. For more information, click here.

Notice:

The court is aware of fraudulent messages and scams being sent to the public. For more information please click here.

Lee Ann Morgan vs HipCamp Inc et al

Case Number

24CV00291

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 06/27/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion to Continue

Tentative Ruling

This is a motion by self-represented plaintiff LeeAnn Morgan to stay (“continue”) this proceeding for six months from the date of the next case management conference, that is, until November 9, 2025, based upon Morgan’s health following a traffic accident on January 13, 2025. (Morgan decl., ¶ 1.) No trial date has yet been set.

Morgan states in her supporting declaration:

“Subsequent evaluations have diagnosed several bodily injuries and a traumatic brain injury with post-concussion syndrome.” (Morgan decl., ¶ 2.) “Until my injuries are sufficiently resolved (estimated by my physicians to be six to eight months) I will be unable to meet the functional demands required by this proceeding.” (Morgan decl., ¶ 3.) “For the next several months, I will need to obtain further evaluations and treatments in order to regain adequate cognitive and physical function.” (Morgan decl., ¶ 4.)

Defendant HipCamp Inc. opposes the motion on the grounds that plaintiff has not demonstrated that a stay of the entire proceedings is justified and that plaintiff has not supported her own declaration with medical records or a physician’s declaration.

Plaintiff has filed a 30-page reply (including exhibits) to supplement and further support her request for a stay.

The court agrees that plaintiff has not shown good cause for the stay of the entire case. This case has not yet been set for trial. Plaintiff has shown herself able to be involved in this litigation to some degree, so a complete stay is not required. To the extent that plaintiff seeks a continuance in responding to outstanding or future discovery, that is a matter for a protective order under the Civil Discovery Act. (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2017.020, 2019.020, subd. (b).) No protective order has now been sought and a request for a protective order, including the prior meet-and-confer, must be addressed to specific discovery. The court does not now address any issues that may be raised by motion for protective order.

The motion to stay will therefore be denied without prejudice to the making of a motion for a protective order.

Was this helpful?

Yes No
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Was this helpful?