Tentative Ruling: Svetlana-Leonidovna Dayal vs Joseph E Holland

Case Number

25CV05051

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 03/20/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: To Set a Hearing on Petition for Writ of Mandate

Tentative Ruling

For all reasons stated herein, petitioner Svetlana Dayal’s motion for an order setting a hearing on the merits of the petition for writ of mandate is granted. This matter is set for hearing on June 26, 2026. Respondent Joseph E. Holland, in his capacity as Santa Barbara County Clerk-Recorder, shall lodge the administrative record with the court on or before April 24, 2026, and serve that record on petitioner. Petitioner shall file and serve a supporting memorandum, and all records and evidence on which petitioner relies in support of the petition, on or before May 8, 2026. Respondent shall file and serve its opposition to the petition on or before May 22, 2026. Petitioner shall file and serve any reply to that opposition on or before May 29, 2026.

Background:

On August 14, 2025, petitioner Svetlana Dayal (Dayal) initiated this action by filing a petition for writ of mandate against respondent Joseph E. Holland, in his official capacity as Santa Barbara County Clerk-Recorder (County).

The petition alleges that Dayal is the holder of a fifty percent undivided ownership interest in the real property at 7303 Bassano Drive, Goleta (Property), based on a grant deed dated November 16, 2018, and a co-ownership agreement dated March 29, 2019. (Pet., ¶¶ 2, 5 & Exs. E, F.)

The petition was filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 and seeks to compel the County to record documents described as “Affidavit of Notice of Interest” and “Notice of Common Law Lien,” which are attached to the petition as exhibit A. (Pet., ¶¶ 1, 3, Ex. A.)

As alleged in the petition:

On June 27, 2025, Dayal appeared in person at the Santa Barbara County Recorder’s Office and presented for recording her Affidavit of Notice of Interest and Notice of Common Law Lien relating to her interest in the Property. (Pet., ¶ 9.)

The County’s staff refused to record the instruments and issued a written notice of refusal dated June 27, 2025, stating they were “unaware of a provision in California law” to record such documents. (Pet., ¶ 10, Ex. C.)

Later the same day, Dayal returned with the same instruments accompanied by a written “Notice to Recorder,” citing applicable statutory authority and demanding these documents be recorded. (Pet., ¶ 11, Ex. B.)

On July 3, 2025, Dayal received a second refusal letter from the County which asserted that the instruments were not “authorized” for recording. (Pet., ¶ 12, Ex. D.)

Dayal seeks an order compelling the County to record these instruments, a declaration affirming the County recorder’s ministerial duty to accept qualifying future documents from Dayal, and costs of this action. (Pet., ¶ 4.)

On September 18, 2025, the County filed an answer to the petition generally denying the allegations therein and setting forth ten affirmative defenses.

On November 12, 2025, Dayal filed this motion to set a hearing on her petition for writ of mandate. Dayal argues that the matter is ripe for determination pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 and Government Code sections 27201 and 27280. Dayal requests that the court set her petition for hearing on its merits.

On March 13, 2026, the County filed a response to Dayal’s motion noting the County has no objection to the court setting a briefing schedule for Dayal’s petition to be heard on its merits.

Analysis:

Dayal filed her petition for writ of mandate pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 to compel the County to perform a ministerial duty required by law. (Pet., ¶¶ 1, 4, 7, 17.) “A ministerial duty is an act that a public agency or officer is required to perform in a prescribed manner in obedience to the mandate of legal authority without regard to any personal judgment concerning the propriety of the act.” (Siskiyou Hospital, Inc. v. County of Siskiyou (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 14, 37.)

“A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station ….” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1085, subd. (a).) Dayal requests that the court set this matter for hearing on the merits. The County does not oppose her request. Based on the foregoing, the court will set this matter for hearing on June 19, 2026.

In its response, the County raises the issue of costs to prepare and lodge the administrative record and cites Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1140. The court notes this is not an action for administrative mandate. (Pet., ¶¶ 1, 7.) It also does not appear that the administrative record is voluminous. The court will require the County to prepare the administrative record, to lodge that record with the court on or before April 24, 2026, and to serve the record on Dayal. In addition, the court will require Dayal to reimburse the County for its actual costs incurred in preparing the administrative record.