Dimitra Hearron et al vs Santa Barbara Community Housing Corporation

Case Number

24CV00660

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 02/02/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Summary Judgment

Tentative Ruling

Dimitra Hearron, et al. v. Santa Barbara Community Housing Corporation

Case No. 24CV00660

           

Hearing Date: February 2, 2026                                

HEARING:              Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment Or, In the Alternative, Summary Adjudication on All Causes of Action and Damages

                                                           

ATTORNEYS:        For Plaintiffs Dimitra Hearron, Sierra Hearron, and Zayden Ramirez: Self- Represented

                             For Defendant Santa Barbara Community Housing Corporation: Marc A. Trachtman, Donald S. Zalewski, Marc Trachtman Law, PC

TENTATIVE RULING:

The motion of defendant Santa Barbara Community Housing Corporation for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication as to all causes of action and damages is continued to February 23, 2026. On or before February 9, 2026, defendant shall either file an amended proof of service listing effective and timely service of the motion on plaintiffs Sierra Hearron and Zayden Ramirez, or explain why service of the motion in the manner listed in the proof of service filed by defendant on November 14, 2025, is timely and effective as to these plaintiffs.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to give notice of the court’s ruling.

Background: 

The first amended complaint (the FAC) filed on April 23, 2024, by plaintiffs Dimitra Hearron (Dimitra), Sierra Hearron (Sierra), and Zayden Ramirez (Zayden), a minor by and through Sierra his guardian ad litem (collectively, Plaintiffs) is the operative pleading. (Note: The court refers to plaintiffs by their first names to avoid confusion due to common surnames. No disrespect is intended.)  The FAC alleges four causes of action against defendant Santa Barbara Community Housing Corporation (SBCHC): (1) breach of implied warranty of habitability; (2) negligence; (3) nuisance; and (4) violations of Civil Code section 1942.4. As alleged in the operative FAC:

SBCHC owns, operates, manages, maintains, and supervises residential property located at 47 Broadmoor, Apt. #7, in Santa Barbara, California (the Property), which is held out for rent to the general public. (FAC, ¶¶ 1, 8-9 & 12.) On June 11, 2004, Dimitra entered into an agreement with SBCHC (the Agreement) to lease the Property. (Id. at ¶ 18.) Plaintiffs have been tenants at the Property since June 2004. (Id. at ¶¶ 5 & 18.)

There exist at the Property, including in its common areas and in Plaintiffs’ unit, conditions which affected its habitability and which were not caused by any wrongful or abnormal use of the Property by Plaintiffs. (FAC, ¶ 21.) These conditions include: cockroach and insect infestations and lack of insect control; pollution from roach feces floating in the air and being inhaled by Plaintiffs; bites from spiders and other insects; damaged or deteriorated carpeting; inoperable stoves, ovens, heating, and smoke alarms; broken kitchen cabinets, tiles, or flooring; water leaks or intrusion, excessive moisture, and water damage; toxic mold causing mold spores to float in the air and be inhaled by Plaintiffs; deteriorated window frames and walls; an unpermitted water heater; and building code and health and safety violations. (FAC, ¶¶ 14, 21, & 41.) Some of those conditions caused Plaintiffs to suffer serious health and medical problems. (FAC, ¶ 14(b)-(c) [roach feces and spider bites] & (m) [toxic mold].)

On March 24, 2023, the City of Santa Barbara Building and Safety Department notified SBCHC of violations of health and safety codes or housing laws. (FAC, ¶¶ 15, 44 & Exh. A [“Notice Of Violation Warning Letter” dated Mar. 24, 2023].) SBCHC failed to make repairs or abate the conditions for a period of more than 35 days after service of citations upon it and thereafter, demanded, attempted to collect, and collected rent from Plaintiffs. (Id. at ¶¶ 34, 45-46.)

The conduct of SBCHC and its failure to make repairs to the Property created conditions which interfered with Plaintiffs’ use of the Property, and caused Plaintiffs to suffer property damage, physical and emotional injuries, pain and suffering, and to incur medical and related expenses. (FAC, ¶¶ 16, 31-32, 34, 37.)

On August 8, 2024, SBCHC filed an answer to the FAC, generally denying its allegations and asserting forty one affirmative defenses, and a cross-complaint against fictitiously named “Roe” defendants 1 through 30, alleging causes of action for equitable or implied indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief against those defendants.

Court records reflect that on May 28, 2025, then counsel of record for Plaintiffs, Gerald S. Ohn (attorney Ohn) filed a motion for an order permitting counsel to be relieved as Plaintiffs’ attorney of record in this action, and on May 30, filed an amended motion to be relieved as counsel (collectively, the motion to be relieved).

On August 25, the court granted the motion to be relieved, and signed and entered separate orders relieving attorney Ohn as counsel of record for Dimitra, Sierra, and Zayden effective upon the filing of proof of service of each signed order upon each client. (Aug. 8, 2025, Minute Order & Orders Granting Motion.) On August 27, attorney Ohn filed proof of service of each of those orders on each plaintiff.

On November 13, SBCHC filed a motion for an order granting summary judgment, or in the alternative summary adjudication, against each of the Plaintiffs as to each cause of action alleged against SBCHC.

On December 15, the court issued a minute order continuing the trial confirmation conference to May 11, 2026.

Court records reflect that, as of this writing, Plaintiffs have not filed any opposition to the motion of SBCHC.

Analysis:

The proof of service of the notice, motion, and papers submitted in support of the motion (collectively, the motion) filed by SBCHC on November 14, 2025, states that the motion was hand delivered to Dimitra at the Property on November 13.

The proof of service also states that the motion was personally served on Zayden and Sierra by delivering the motion to a female individual identified as “Zoey Ramirez”, at the last known address listed in the orders granting attorney Ohn’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Sierra and Zayden. (Nov. 14, 2025, Proof of Service at pdf p. 1, ¶ 3; Aug. 25, 2025, Orders Granting Attorney’s Motion, ¶¶ 6.)

“Zoey Ramirez”, who is not a party or plaintiff in this action, is not listed as counsel of record for Plaintiffs. For these reasons, it is unclear to the court whether or why delivery of the motion to “Zoey Ramirez” at the address identified in the proof of service constitutes effective or timely service of the motion on Sierra and Zayden. Therefore, the court will continue the hearing on the motion to permit SBCHC to either file an amended proof of service listing effective and timely service of the motion as to Sierra and Zayden, or explain why service of the motion on Sierra and Zayden in the manner listed in the proof of service filed on November 14, is timely and effective as to these plaintiffs.