James Knapp vs City of Santa Barbara et al

Case Number

24CV03988

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 10/31/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion to Lift Stay

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of plaintiff James Knapp to lift the stay of this action imposed by the court on January 31, 2025, is denied.

Background:

As alleged in plaintiff’s first amended complaint (FAC):

Plaintiff James Knapp is the manager of a limited liability company (LLC) that owns an apartment building within the city limits of defendant City of Santa Barbara (City). (FAC, ¶¶ 1, 7, 13.)

On January 31, 2024, in his capacity as the manager of the LLC, Knapp caused to be served a 60-day written notice to terminate tenancy on a tenant so that the LLC could substantially remodel the apartment building’s electrical, wiring, and plumbing systems pursuant to lawfully issued building permits issued by the City. (FAC, ¶ 13.) The repairs authorized under the permits would require the tenant to be displaced from the unit for more than 30 days in order to be completed. (Ibid.) In serving the notice, Knapp contemplated in good faith and under serious consideration the filing of an unlawful detainer action in the event the tenant did not abide by the requirements of the notice. (Ibid.) In fact, thereafter, Knapp caused to be filed an unlawful detainer complaint in this Court based upon the eviction notice on April 5, 2024. (Ibid.)

On May 1, 2024, after Knapp had already caused to be filed the unlawful detainer action based upon the eviction notice at issue, the City Attorney filed a misdemeanor complaint against Knapp (Criminal Complaint) in People v. Knapp, Santa Barbara Superior Court case No. 24CR03332 (Criminal Action). (FAC, ¶ 15 & exhibit 2.) The Criminal Complaint contains three counts: (1) unlawfully terminating the tenancy of a qualified tenant without just cause stated in full in the termination notice in violation of Santa Barbara Municipal Code section 26.50.010; (2) unlawfully failing to comply with the just cause eviction notice requirements in violation of Santa Barbara Municipal Code section 26.50.040; and (3) unlawfully failing to serve tenants with a copy of the permits along with the written notice stating the reason for the termination, the type and scope of work to be performed, why the work cannot be reasonably accomplished in a safe manner with the tenant in place, and why the work requires the tenant to vacate the residential real property for at least 30 days when seeking to recover possession of a property to totally demolish or to substantially remodel in violation of Santa Barbara Municipal Code section 26.50.070, definition of “Just Cause,” subdivision (2)(d). (FAC, ¶ 16 & exhibit B.)

On July 18, 2024, while the Criminal Action was pending, Knapp filed his original complaint against City and against the Office of the City Attorney. Defendants filed a demurrer to the original complaint. Shortly thereafter, and before that demurrer was heard, Knapp filed his FAC. The FAC asserts two causes of action: (1) for declaratory relief (facial violation of Civil Code, § 47); and (2) for declaratory relief (as-applied violation of Civil Code, § 47). In both causes of action Knapp asserts that Civil Code section 47 preempts the provisions of Santa Barbara Municipal Code chapter 26.50 that allow the City Attorney to bring an “administrative, civil, or criminal action” for penalties, damages, or imprisonment against a rental housing owner who files a court action to recover possession of a rental unit. (FAC, ¶¶ 24, 33.)

The City withdrew its demurrer to the original complaint as superseded by the FAC. On October 18, 2024, the City filed its demurrer to the FAC. The City argued that Civil Code section 47 does not preempt chapter 26.50 of the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 26.50). Knapp opposed the demurrer, arguing in favor of preemption.

The court identified jurisdictional and jurisprudential issues in proceeding with this civil action while the Criminal Action remained pending. The court requested further briefing on this issue. On January 31, 2025, the court provided its analysis of the issues and determined that case law, policy, and equitable principles supported staying this action while the Criminal Action remained pending. The court ordered the demurrer off calendar to be reset for hearing when the stay is lifted.

The court set a case management conference (CMC) to monitor the status of the Criminal Action for May 2, 2025.

On April 17, 2025, the defendants filed a statement in advance of the May 2 CMC that the parties in the Criminal Action entered into a plea agreement and the court in the Criminal Action granted Knapp an order of misdemeanor diversion pursuant to Penal Code section 1001.95 (Diversion Order). (City Statement, filed Apr. 17, 2025, p. 2 & exhibit A.) Among the conditions imposed upon Knapp by the Diversion Order are that (1) Knapp must obey Chapter 26.50 and commit no similar violations of Chapter 26.5, (2) Knapp must not terminate any tenancies in violation of Chapter 26.50; (3) Knapp must not misrepresent any tenant’s rights under Chapter 26.50; and (4) Knapp must not retaliate against any tenant for exercising rights under Chapter 26.50. (Id., at p. 3 & exhibit A.) The diversion period ends on March 24, 2027. (Ibid.)

On May 2, 2025, Knapp requested, and this court entered, dismissal as to the second cause of action of the complaint (the as-applied challenge). Also on May 2, the court continued the CMC to September 5.

On July 10, 2025, Knapp filed this motion to lift the stay. Knapp argues that by dismissing the second cause of action (the as-applied challenge), there is no further need for the stay so that the first cause of action (the facial challenge) may proceed. This motion is set for this hearing of October 31.

On September 5, 2025, the court continued the CMC also to this hearing date.

On October 17, 2025, defendants filed opposition to the motion to lift the stay. On October 24, 2025, Knapp filed his reply.

Analysis:

With respect to the court’s analysis imposing the stay, the court reiterates and incorporates by reference its ruling of January 31, 2025.

The changed circumstances since that order asserted by Knapp are two-fold. First, the Criminal Action resulted in the Diversion Order. (Forouzandeh decl., ¶ 7 & exhibit 2.) Second, Knapp has dismissed the as-applied challenge of his FAC, leaving only the facial challenge. (Id., ¶¶ 8-9.)

Knapp argues that the remaining facial challenge is broader than the specific charges addressed in the Criminal Action and so does not conflict with the Criminal Action. Defendants oppose the motion arguing that Knapp remains subject to the Diversion Order that requires him to comply with the entirety of Chapter 26.50.

The court determines that the changes in circumstances since the January 31, 2025, stay order do not on balance weigh in favor of lifting the stay at this time. While the facial challenge is broader than the criminal charges brought against Knapp, Knapp has accepted conditions from the court in the Criminal Action which could be affected by the result of Knapp’s facial challenge. There is nothing before the court in this motion to suggest that Knapp could not have directly challenged the conditions of the Diversion Order in the Criminal Action as unlawful. Having voluntarily accepted those conditions, Knapp has agreed not to act contrary to terms he seeks to invalidate by the facial challenge. This falls within the court’s reasoning of granting the stay. The court stayed—rather than dismissed as moot—Knapp’s challenge because, regardless of the outcome of the Criminal Action, there remain issues, including those highlighted by Knapp in this motion, for which Knapp may ultimately be entitled to judicial resolution (one way or another). However, while the Criminal Action remains pending and Knapp remains subject to the authority of the court in the Criminal Action on these issues, the same considerations that led to the granting of the stay remain.

The motion to lift the stay at this time will be denied.