Zaca Preserve LLC vs Sable Offshore Corporation et al

Case Number

24CV05483

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 05/30/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Demurrers; Motion to Strike

Tentative Ruling

Unless a party appears at the hearing and shows good cause otherwise, this action is transferred to the Cook Division (Santa Maria). The demurrers and motion to strike will be rescheduled for hearing following transfer.

In the original complaint and the first amended complaint, plaintiff Zaca Preserve, LLC, (Zaca) alleges that it owns a 138-acre parcel of land “located to the north of Buellton, CA.” (FAC, ¶ 12; Complaint, ¶ 12.) Zaca’s first cause of action is to quiet title to a recorded easement that burdens this parcel. (FAC, ¶¶ 16, 102-113.)

The general rule for venue within Santa Barbara County is determined by Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rules (Local Rules), rule 203, subdivision (a):

“When, under California law, ‘North County’ would be a ‘proper county’ for venue purposes, all filings for such matters shall be in the appropriate division of the Clerk's office in North County. All other filings shall be made in the Clerk's office in the appropriate division of the Court in South County.”

A qualification to this general rule is the rule of venue for real property cases:

“Notwithstanding whether venue may be proper in a different geographic area (North County or South County) under subdivision (a) of this rule, any case which asserts a claim under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), under the Williamson Act (Gov. Code, § 51200 et seq.), or which asserts a claim based upon title, use, or regulation of specific real property shall be filed initially in the geographic area where the real property that is the subject of the dispute is situated. Cases subject to this subdivision may be venued in a different division only upon a showing of good cause made to the appropriate department of the Court in the geographic area where the real property is situated.” (Local Rules, rule 203, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff’s complaint asserts a claim based upon title and use of specific real property. The allegations of the location of the real property appears to place the real property in “North County.” (See Local Rules, rule 201 & appendix 1 [defining “North County”].) It therefore appears that this case should be transferred to North County.