Diana Sandoval v Robert Seidler et al

Case Number

24CV04379

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 10/29/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion for Consolidation; Request for Judicial Notice

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff: Stephen M. Sanders, Jeff G. Coyner.

For Defendants Robert Seidler and PoloDonkey, LLC: Todd A. Amspoker, Jeff F. Tchakarov.

For County of Santa Barbara: Rachel Van Mullem, Amber Holderness, Valerie A. Janiel.

For California Coastal Commission: Thomas Kinzinger.

Issue

Motion for Consolidation; Request for Judicial Notice.  

RULINGS

1. The request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.

2. For the reasons set out below the Motion to Consolidate is DENIED.

Analysis

The Motion to Consolidate

   Filed 8/29/25; 22 pages; read and considered; summarized.

   Contends that the issues of fact between the two actions are so intertwined that major inefficiency and risk of injustice will result if they are not consolidated. Consolidation will benefit all parties and prevent waste of judicial resources. Sandoval requests that the Court order the Lead Case and Related Case to be ordered consolidated for all purposes, including trial.

   Movant requests that the Court vacate the November 19, 2025, trial date in Case No. 24CV05259 and maintain the Lead Case trial date of March 11, 2026, for the consolidated cases. This consolidation will serve the interests of justice and economy by streamlining the proceedings and avoiding unnecessary delay or cost. 

   Argues there are currently two related actions pending in this Court, both arising from the same underlying dispute concerning property rights, environmental regulations, local and state laws and regulations, and safety hazards. The actions involve Diana Sandoval and Tyler Quiel and Robert Seidler and PoloDonkey, and address overlapping legal and factual issues, including the validity of the previously abandoned and terminated easement, the safety and legality of an abandoned bridge and road unlawfully rebuilt by Seidler outside a disputed easement on Sandoval's property, and violations of local, state, and environmental laws, such as the Coastal Act, CEQA, and Santa Barbara County Code.   

   The actions each allege common causes of action and share substantially similar parties and witnesses. Because of the considerable overlap in the two cases, there has been, similar parties and witnesses. Because of the considerable overlap in the two cases, there has been, a duplication of effort by all counsel in this action; and a lack of efficiency that will occur if these matters are not consolidated for all purposes; the Plaintiff requests that the Court consolidate the matters for all purposes, including trial, to promote judicial economy and avoid the risk of inconsistent findings.

   Argues the common facts and circumstances of the Lead Case and Related Case each arises from disputes involving the real property located at 3196 Serena Avenue, Carpinteria, owned by the Sandoval Quiel Revocable Living Trust and represented by Diana Sandoval, and the adjacent property at 3215 Foothill Road, Carpinteria, owned by Polodonkey, represented by Robert Seidler. The case involves the allegations of unlawful and non-code-compliant reconstruction by Polodonkey and/or Robert Seidler of a previously abandoned and deconstructed residential road and bridge — knowingly rebuilt outside the previously recorded and disputed 1915 easement, encroaching onto Sandoval's private property—and subsequently reclassified for commercial use. The illegal commercial road and bridge is located within an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area, a stream, and a high-flood zone, constituting violations of local, state, and federal laws and regulations by Seidler, the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development, the Santa Barbara Board of Building Appeals, and the California Coastal Commission.

  Seidler's predecessor in interest, Michaell Rothbard, had allegedly formally relinquished the Serena entrance in favor of two new driveways via Foothill Road. In 2016, to obtain other entitlements and permits for the Foothill Property, Seidler submitted on behalf of PoloDonkey an application explicitly stating, Access will continue to be provided off Foothill Road. This obfuscated the fact that the abandoned bridge and easement were a part of that access and that Seidler would attempt to continue to use the abandoned bridge and its related easement.

  On October 1, 2017, a neighbor apparently trespassing through the overlapping properties, fell through a hole on the abandoned bridge, which led to a lawsuit filed on March 19, 2018. The 2018 Lawsuit Incident was filed against Plaintiff's predecessor in interest, resulting in all railings and floorboards being removed promptly, which prevented anyone from using the disputed easement for a period of years. The pleadings in the 2018 Macleod lawsuit specifically cites the bridge's dilapidated condition and lack of warning signs as contributing factors to the injury.

  On March 20, 2024, Building Inspector Carl Lindberg issued abating violation wherein Polodonkey had not obtained any permits required by the Stop Work Order and the Building and Safety in-house review of engineering reports determining the abutments were deficient and required repair, and without conducting a site visit. Plaintiff timely appealed to the County of Santa Barbara Board of Building Appeals.

  On March 22, 2024, Building Official Craig Johnson reviewed a survey of the bridge encroaching onto Petitioner and Plaintiffs property and stated, it looks like the bridge is about a 60/40 or so split. Plaintiff timely appealed to the County of Santa Barbara Board of Building Appeals.  

  On April 1, 2024, Building Official Craig Johnson erroneously misapplied an exemption when he emailed County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development Director Lisa Plowman, stating that the County considered the work to be permit-exempt under the County's permit exemption policy, which includes platforms, walks, and wood decks that are not more than 30 inches above grade at any point. However, this exemption does not apply to the bridge in question, as the bridge is 60 inches above grade.  

 On April 4, 2024, Planning and Development Director Lisa Plowman allegedly emailed Assistant County Executive Officer Wade Horton, admitting that the Stop Work Notice remained until the Division authorized the bridge repair. It is alleged that Director Plowman erroneously claimed the bridge was exempt from permits under a policy for Director Plowman erroneously claimed the bridge was exempt from permits under a policy for structures under 120 square feet. The bridge is 218 square feet and should not and does not therefore qualify for this exemption.

  On April 16, 2024, Building Official Craig Johnson allegedly issued an unlawful permit knowing that the bridge encroached onto Petitioner and Plaintiffs property without proper authorization or compensation.

  On June 6, 2024, Director Plowman informed Plaintiff of the decision to allegedly exempt the abandoned bridge from all zoning and a Coastal Development Permit. On June 14, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a timely appeal.

  On June 25, 2024, Director Plowman rejected the timely appeal.

  On June 18, 2024, Director Plowman exempted the reconstruction from the Toro Canyon Plan, misclassified the bridge as non-conforming despite the Toro Canyon Plan, and refused to open a formal complaint filed on June 17, 2024, regarding the associated property rights violations.

  On June 27, 2024, Plaintiff submitted a timely appeal. Plowman unlawfully rejected the timely appeal.

  After exhausting all zoning administrative remedies at the local level, Sandoval appealed to the California Coastal Commission on July 1, 2024. On July 24, 2024, the California Coastal Commission issued a letter notifying Plaintiff of the acceptance of the appeal.

  To ensure compliance with zoning and Coastal Act statutes of limitations, the Plaintiff filed a timely Petition for Administrative Mandamus against Santa Barbara County Planning and Development on August 5, 2024. PoloDonkey was listed as a Real Party of Interest. Most importantly, Robert Seidler (the principal of PoloDonkey) was aware of Sandoval's lawsuit from its inception.

  On August 16, 2024, Sandoval's counsel directly notified Seidler's counsel (Attorney Mark Manion of Price, Postell & Parma LLP) of the filing of the Sandoval action and its relevance to Seidler's interests. From early on, Seidler had the opportunity to address his grievances within the framework of the first case by filing a cross-complaint against Sandoval or by at least filing a Notice of Related Case under California Rules of Court 3.300. No such cross-complaint or notice was filed. Instead, on September 23, 2024, Seidler, through PoloDonkey, opted to file a new and separate lawsuit, deliberately failing to file a Notice of Related Case, thereby violating California Rules of Court, Rule 3.300. This procedural history underscores that the two cases are in fact "two halves" of one dispute that should be handled together. The later-filed PoloDonkey action is duplicative litigation, which consolidation is designed to prevent. 

   On December 18, 2024, Sandoval's counsel filed to relate the Lead Case to the second action. The Court then ordered the two actions to be related on January 3, 2025.  The Court set the Lead Case for trial on March 11, 2026, and the second related action for trial on November 19, 2025. 

   Movant, in the interests of justice and so as not to substantially prejudice the parties and their preparation for trial as to claims and defense alleged in the Lead Case, whose matter only recently became “ "at" issue” with the filing of the answer by Defendants PoloDonkey and Robert Seidler therein on or after June 30, 2025, requests the Court consolidate the two matters and advance the trial date for the related case to be heard with the Lead case on March 11, 2026 in this department. 

  The statutory authority allowing this Court to consolidate related cases is set forth in C.C.P. §§403 and 404.1, as well as C.C.P. § 1048.

Request for Judicial Notice

(Judicial notice is the recognition and acceptance by the Court, for use by the trier of fact or by the Court, of the existence of a matter of law or fact that is relevant to an issue in the action without requiring formal proof of the matter. Judicial notice may not be taken of any matter unless authorized or required by law. Matters that are subject to judicial notice are listed in Evid. Code §§ 451 and 452. A matter ordinarily is subject to judicial notice only if the matter is reasonably beyond dispute. Taking judicial notice of a document is not the same as accepting the truth of its contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning. While Courts take judicial notice of public records, they do not take notice of the truth of matters stated therein. When judicial notice is taken of a document, the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable. Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., (2011) 196 Cal. App. 4th 1366.)  [Emphasis the Court’s])

   Request filed 10/16/25; 264 pages; asks that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents, attached as exhibits to Defendants’ Compendium of Exhibits.

1. Verified Complaint filed in the lawsuit titled PoloDonkey, LLC v. Tyler N. Quiel, et

al., Case No. 24CV05259, Santa Barbara Superior Court.  A true and correct copy of this document is attached as Exhibit A to DCOE.

2. Verified Second Amended Petition for Writ(s) of Mandamus/Mandate and Complaint

for Damages filed in the lawsuit titled Diana Sandoval (trustee) v. County of Santa Barbara, Department of Planning & Development, et al., Case No. 24CV04379, Santa Barbara County Superior Court. 

3. Minute Order dated and entered on May 28, 2025, in the lawsuit titled Diana Sandoval

(trustee) v. County of Santa Barbara, Department of Planning & Development, et al., Case No. 24CV04379, Santa Barbara County Superior Court. 

4. Receipt for Coastal Development Permit Application by PoloDonkey, LLC, Permit

No. 25CDH-00009 for APN 005-270-006, with a screenshot from the County of Santa Barbara’s website showing a Project Description re: bridge repairs. 

5. County of Santa Barbara, Planning and Development Department’s Determination of Application Incompleteness re: PoloDonkey, LLC’s Coastal Development Permit Application, Permit No. 25CDH-00009 for APN 005-270-006. 

6. Verified Petition and Complaint for Damages filed in the lawsuit titled Diana

Sandoval (trustee) v. County of Santa Barbara, Department of Planning & Development, et al., Case No. 24CV04379, Santa Barbara County Superior Court. 

7. Verified First Amended Petition for Writ(s) of Mandamus/Mandate and Complaint

for Damages filed in the lawsuit titled Diana Sandoval (trustee) v. County of Santa Barbara, Department of Planning & Development, et al., Case No. 24CV04379, Santa Barbara County Superior Court. 

Opposition to Motion to Consolidate

   Filed 10/16/25; 19 pages; read and considered; summarized: The Motion is a thinly veiled, last-minute attempt to continue trial currently set for November 19, 2025, in the Related Case.  The factual and legal overlap between the two cases is limited to the parties’ conflicting easement claims and falls short of the statutory basis for consolidation. 

   PoloDonkey’s Related Case focuses exclusively on the narrow common issue of easement existence and validity, Sandoval’s Lead Case asserts additional and completely unrelated claims for fraud, negligence and violations of the California Coastal Act.  Moreover, Sandoval has not exhausted her administrative remedies with respect to her allegations under the Coastal Act because the County of Santa Barbara has not issued a decision on PoloDonkey’s pending application for a Coastal Development Permit.  The County will not make such a decision until the Court has first ruled on PoloDonkey’s prescriptive easement claims, which therefore cannot be adjudicated in the same trial with Sandoval’s “unripe” Coastal Act violation claims.  

   Further precluding consolidation is the fact that PoloDonkey asserts in the Related Case only equitable causes of action and seeks only equitable relief, while Sandoval’s Lead Case involves multiple causes of action at law and seeks relief including monetary damages.  Accordingly, the Related Case can be expeditiously tried in a bench trial on November 19, 2025, which would narrow the issues to be decided by a jury in the Lead Case trial on March 11, 2026.  Combining the two trials would only complicate and confuse the issues for the jury, with the trier of fact having to sit through testimony and legal argument on the parties’ conflicting easement claims and prayers for relief, which are all equitable and therefore triable without any jury assistance.  

   Last but not least, the timing of the Motion virtually begs for its denial. The limited factual and legal overlap between the two cases has been in existence since Sandoval filed her First Amended Complaint in the Lead Case back in November 2024, and the parties in the two cases have been the same since the dismissal of the County and the California Coastal Commission from the Lead Case on May 28, 2025.  Sandoval could have filed this Motion months ago, but instead procrastinated and filed it on the eve of trial in the Related Case.  Consolidation for trial purposes this late in the proceedings would result in severe prejudice to PoloDonkey and its counsel, who are already in the middle of intense trial preparation. 

   Sandoval’s Lead Case is set for trial on March 11, 2026, and PoloDonkey’s Related Case is set for trial on November 19, 2025.  PoloDonkey has filed in the Related Case a Motion for Summary Judgment or, In the Alternative, Summary Adjudication (“Summary Judgment Motion”), which is set for hearing concurrently with this Motion on October 29, 2025.  All depositions of eleven (11) non-expert percipient witnesses in the Related Case have been completed.  The discovery cut-off date in the Related Case is October 20, 2025.  A Mandatory Settlement Conference is scheduled in the Related Case on October 31, 2025, in Dept. 5 of this Court. 

Reply

Filed 10/22/25; read and considered; summarized; 15 pages. Contends There is nothing “veiled” -- “thinly” or otherwise -- as opposing counsel states in the Introduction to their Opposition, that the Plaintiff in bringing the motion to consolidate IS IN FACT requesting a trial continuance along with the consolidation of the two cases, and that good cause exists to have these cases litigated and tried together since BOTH cases involving competing claims between the same or similar parties, over essentially the same justiciable facts and circumstances, and same or substantially similar causes of action or competing defenses.

The Opposition fails and the motion should be granted because of the following:

1. The Opposition ignores or distorts the record on key common and competing issues facts and law, which support trial continuance in the Related Case and Consolidation, for all purposes.

2. The Opposition improperly relies on a specious “ripeness” theory already previously

adjudicated on demurrer (in favor of Plaintiff, finding that the case is in fact “ripe”) to argue the two cases somehow “cannot” be combined, with no reasoned authority cited based on similar facts.

3. The Motion is timely, and the Opposition provides no authority as a basis for denial otherwise, and there remains no actual prejudice to Defendants, or any substantial prejudice and good cause is amply demonstrated for a continuance and Consolidation.

4. There remain claims and defenses justiciable by a trier of fact in both cases, Plaintiff Sandoval in the Lead Case, and Defendants Quiel-Sandoval in the Related case are each entitled under the California Constitution to a jury trial.

5. Denying the Motion to Consolidate substantially risks a violation of those Rights based on potential impacts from Res Judicata or Collateral Estoppel on findings by separate triers of fact.

6. There is no actual prejudice to Defendants since they were on notice and had the early opportunity to stipulate to consolidate and refused with no good cause shown, and the Motion is being heard after filing on the earliest available date on the Court’s calendar, which should not prejudice Plaintiff.

   The Opposition does not really address the substance of the Plaintiff’s motion supporting a Continuance and Consolidation, particularly as to judicial economy, convenience of the witnesses, the gross prejudice and inequities of the issues and effect of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel on Plaintiff’s affirmative claims, or other compelling basis for substantial prejudice to Plaintiff (or the Defendants in the Related Case).  The Lead Case setting forth these affirmative claims is set for trial on these same or substantially similar issues of law and fact, on March 11, 2026, if they are not allowed to put on their affirmative case along with their defenses in the Related Case, trial currently set for November 19, 2025, based on the same or substantially similar facts and law.  There has been NO prior continuance in the Related Case, and the November 19, 2025 is the first trial date set herein, which matters the Court itself has said have complex issues of law and fact, and there remains no compelling reason to deny motion for consolidation and continuance, and only substantial and compelling reasons to grant it.

   In fact, the Defendants are frankly COUNTING on the inequities and potential injustice of the res judicata and/or collateral estoppel effect arising from the Related Case, which is clearly why they brought the within separate Related Case rather than bringing their own affirmative claims in the previously filed Lead Case.  The Court should not provide Defendants any material assistance in that regard, good cause is amply demonstrated, and the Court should follow the facts, and the law as set forth by Plaintiff and grant the trial continuance requested of the Related Case trial date and grant the motion to consolidate the two cases for all purposes, including past and future discovery.

A. The Opposition Ignores Key Common and Competing Issues, Facts and Law in Both Actions, and Distorts the Record and Misleads as to Bases for the Similarity Thereof.

B. The Opposition Improperly Relies on A Specious “Ripeness” Theory Already Adjudicated on Demurrer to Argue the Two Cases Somehow “Cannot” Be Combined, With No Reasoned Analysis or Authority Cited Based on Similar Facts.

C. The Motion Is Timely, Based On the Facts and Circumstances, the Opposition Provides No Salient Facts or Authority Otherwise, and There Remains Minimal or No Actual Prejudice to Defendants From a Consolidation and Continuance.

D. There Remain Claims and Defenses Justiciable by a Trier of Fact in Both Cases, Plaintiff in the Lead Case and Defendants in the Related Case are Each Entitled Under the California Constitution to a Jury Trial.    

The Court’s Conclusions

  The motion to consolidate should be denied.

   In evaluating a motion to consolidate, trial Courts generally consider the following factors:

(1) Timeliness of the motion: i.e., whether granting consolidation would delay the trial of any of the cases involved, or whether discovery in one or more of the cases has proceeded without all parties present; (2) complexity: i.e., whether joining the actions involved would make the trial too confusing or complex for a jury; and (3) prejudice: i.e., whether consolidation would adversely affect the rights of any party.  Cal. Prac. Guide: Civ. Proc. Before Trial (The Rutter Group, June 2025), Ch. 12(I)-E (Consolidation, Coordination and Bifurcation), § 12:362.

  The Court has read everything; the documentation was exhaustive; through; complete. The Court found the opposition persuasive. The opposition argues:

  That the only overlap of factual and legal issues between the Lead Case and the Related Case concerns the existence and validity of the Easement.  Unlike the Lead Case, the issues in the Related Case have been narrowed down and PoloDonkey seeks merely to confirm the existence of the Express Easement (publicly recorded in 1915) and to establish the existence of a Prescriptive Easement over the Serena Property.  Should the Court confirm PoloDonkey’s Easement rights, the Complaint filed in the Related Case prays for injunctive relief compelling Sandoval to remove the Bamboo Fence and refrain from installing new obstructions on the Easement area.

  That in the Lead Case, Sandoval alleges that any Easement rights PoloDonkey may have once had over the Serena Property have now been extinguished and/or abandoned, and thus the Bridge extends illegally onto the Serena Property and should be removed.  This exhausts the factual and legal overlap between the two cases because Sandoval’s remaining allegations asserted in the Lead Case have nothing to do with the limited issues of the existence and validity of the Easement set forth in the Related Case. 

  That Sandoval’s insistence in the Motion that the background of both cases is “nearly identical” is without merit. Sandoval’s argument that the same key non-party witnesses, including representatives from Santa Barbara County Planning and Development and the California Coastal Commission, and engineering professionals will be needed in both cases.  While the testimony of County and Coastal Commission representatives may be necessary in the Lead Case to shed light on Sandoval’s allegations of Coastal Act violations and negligence, no such testimony will be needed in the Related Case.  Specifically, in the Lead Case, testimony by County and Coastal Commission employees, as well as by engineering professionals, could assist the Court in deciding whether Seidler’s repairs to the Bridge (and, allegedly, to a nearby gas line) were permitted, whether they created any safety hazards, and/or whether they violated any environmental, zoning and building regulations.  However, such testimony would be completely irrelevant as to the narrow issue at the center of the Related Case, i.e., whether the Easement has been abandoned.

   That contrary to Sandoval’s assertions in the Motion, the County and the Coastal Commission are no longer Defendants in the Lead Case.  More importantly, Sandoval insinuates in the Motion that the County and the Coastal Commission “may provide testimony [in the Related Case] as to the calculation of permitting use of the rights to the easement,” and that “[t]he County will be required to provide the same or similar testimony for the easement [and] its ownership” in both cases.  Motion 10:23-24, 11:4-5. 

   That neither the County nor the Coastal Commission have any jurisdiction, let alone jurisdiction superseding this Court’s, to determine or establish the existence and scope of easement ownership rights.  Therefore, any opinions or conclusions by County or Coastal Commission staff as to the existence and validity of the Easement would be completely irrelevant and unnecessary in the Related Case.  

   That misleading is Sandoval’s assertion in the Motion that the County and the Coastal Commission “may give conflicting testimony in the two separate cases.”  The Motion then proceeds to hypothesize that the Coastal Commission may give conflicting testimony about permitting and environmental issues within the context of the Lead Case and the Quiet Title cause of action in the Related Case.  Allegations of permitting and environmental violations resulting from Seidler’s Bridge repairs have nothing to do with the parties’ competing Quiet Title claims to the Easement.  The Bridge repairs are only relevant to the use of the Bridge and Easement, as well as to Sandoval’s easement abandonment theory. 

   That while County or Coastal Commission testimony regarding permitting and environmental violations might be relevant to Sandoval’s cause of action for Coastal Act violations asserted in the Lead Case, such testimony would be entirely out of context with respect to PoloDonkey’s Easement claims asserted in the Related Case.  

   That Sandoval’s portrayal in the Motion of the involvement that County and Coastal Commission representatives, as well as engineering professionals, would have in the Related Case is inaccurate or, at the very least, hugely exaggerated.  Similarly to the limited overlap of factual and legal issues between the two cases, the overlap of key witnesses is also limited to those individuals who can assist the Court in adjudicating only the parties’ conflicting Easement claims, and thus no consolidation is warranted in this matter. 

  That in the Lead Case, Sandoval’s SAC alleges that, on or about April 16, 2024, PoloDonkey and Seidler obtained from the County an over-the-counter building permit, authorizing them to perform repairs and improvements to the Bridge.  Initially, the County exempted the Bridge reconstruction from the requirement for a CDP, and thus PoloDonkey did not obtain a CDP before completing the Bridge repairs allowed under the Building Permit.  On or about May 6, 2024, County personnel inspected the repairs and improvements authorized pursuant to the Building Permit and declared the Bridge adequate for use by pedestrians, bicycles and motorcycles.  On or about May 31, 2024, after the Bridge repairs had passed inspection, the County closed out the Building Permit.  However, on or about October 23, 2024, the County formally rescinded its determination exempting the Bridge repairs from a CDP and confirmed in a letter to Seidler that a CDP will be required to retroactively approve the Bridge repairs. 

   That on April 10, 2025, PoloDonkey submitted to the County the requisite CDP application, requesting retroactive approval of the already completed Bridge repairs and maintenance.  On May 9, 2025, the County responded to PoloDonkey’s CDP Application with a Determination of Application Incompleteness, in which the County found PoloDonkey’s CDP Application to be incomplete and required the following additional information before the CDP Application could be processed: 

   That a portion of the proposed bridge repairs are located on 3196 Serena Avenue (the adjacent property). The plans show an easement over 3196 Serena Avenue; however, a portion of the bridge repairs extend beyond that easement area. Before even beginning to process PoloDonkey’s CDP Application, the County requires either Sandoval’s consent or a confirmation that PoloDonkey has a Prescriptive Easement underneath the portion of the Bridge located outside the Express Easement.  It is safe to assume that Sandoval will not consent to anything related to the CDP Application at least until the conclusion of this litigation, and thus the County will not commence its CDP Application review at least until this Court has ruled on PoloDonkey’s Prescriptive Easement claim in the Related Case.  

   That until the County decides on PoloDonkey’s CDP Application, Sandoval’s cause of action for Coastal Act violations is not “ripe” for adjudication because, while the CDP Application is pending, no final administrative determination has been reached as to whether the Bridge repairs violated the Coastal Act or the Local Coastal Plan.  Until the CDP Application process runs its course and results in a final administrative decision, Sandoval has not exhausted all her administrative remedies with respect to PoloDonkey’s alleged Coastal Act violations.

   That the Court must first rule on PoloDonkey’s Prescriptive Easement claim in the Related Case, and if the Court’s ruling is in PoloDonkey’s favor, the County’s requirement that the entire Bridge is located within the Easement area will be satisfied and the County will proceed to review the CDP Application.  Meanwhile, trial of Sandoval’s cause of action for Coastal Act Violations will have to be held in abeyance until the County issues its final administrative decision on the CDP Application.  Only then will Sandoval have exhausted all her administrative remedies and only then will Sandoval’s cause of action for Coastal Act violations become “ripe” for adjudication. 

   Sandoval’s claim for Coastal Act violations and PoloDonkey’s Prescriptive Easement claim cannot be adjudicated in the same trial, which definitively precludes consolidation of the Lead Case with the Related case. 

   That conflating Sandoval’s legal claims with PoloDonkey’s purely equitable claims in a single jury trial would only complicate and confuse the issues for the jury, as the jurors would have to sit through and listen to testimony and legal arguments related to PoloDonkey’s Easement rights, which are only for this Court to decide, and which have nothing to do with Sandoval’s claims for fraud, negligence and Coastal Act violations.  

   That if the November 19, 2025, trial in the Related Case proceeds as scheduled, the Court can first try PoloDonkey’s equitable claims without the assistance of a jury and PoloDonkey’s Easement claims will be thus most efficiently adjudicated.  Proceeding in this fashion would narrow the issues to be resolved during the March 11, 2026, trial in the Lead Case, in which the jury can focus on Sandoval’s legal claims and requests for monetary damages, as well as on lengthy testimony unrelated to the Easement issues, including the testimony of County officials, engineers and other experts on complicated administrative procedures, construction matters and environmental issues. 

   That the Motion to Consolidate was untimely; should have been brought much sooner.

   Maintaining two separate trials – and not consolidating them – will result in streamlining the proceedings and judicial efficiency.

   Sandoval’s consolidation request should be denied.