Kendra Feshbach, et al. v. City of Santa Barbara
Case No: 16CV03385
Hearing Date: Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:30

Nature of Proceedings: Motion Set CMC/Trial Date

Motion to set a Trial Date, or, alternatively, a CMC Date

Attorneys

For Plaintiff: Alexandre Ian Cornelius

For City: Michael G. Colantuono, Pamela K. Graham, Megan S. Knize, Ariel Pierre Calonne, Tom R. Shapiro

Ruling: Trial is set for a 9:30 am trial call on Tuesday March 11, 2020; the Court will discuss with the parties at that time if an actual court “trial” will be necessary; typically a mandamus action is tried solely on the documents submitted and providing the parties an opportunity to argue against the Tentative Decision that is based upon the briefs. But with that said, the Court will wait until March 11 and then discuss with counsel if they wish to proceed in a fashion that this Court has not found typical in the past; every case is different. The briefing schedule is approved and adopted. The Court will not foreclose the City from filing any appropriate motion, but that will not change or delay the trial date set.

Background:

On 11/14 Counsel for Plaintiff filed a motion and reports that this is a mandamus matter tried to the Court and the trial should not be any longer than one day. The parties have met and conferred, and they now propose that the trial occur on any date during the week of March 9, 2020 (except Friday, March 13, 2020) that is convenient to the Court, and that the briefing schedule for the trial should be as follows:

Petitioner Trial Brief: 45 days before the date set for trial;

Respondents Trial Brief: 20 days before the date set for trial; and

Petitioner Reply Brief: 10 days before the date set for trial.

On 11/25 the City filed a Response and reports Counsel for City met and conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, and does not object to the proposed trial dates. Nor does the City object to the proposed briefing schedule. However, the City intends to move under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420 to dismiss for failure to prosecute. That motion could dispose of the case. As such, it must be heard before any party goes to the expense of briefing this case for trial. The City respectfully requests this Court either set a case management conference, or alternatively a trial date and briefing schedule that will allow it to hear the City’s motion to dismiss before Plaintiff’s opening brief is due.

On 12/3 the Plaintiff filed a Reply and reports out of the blue, that the City has filed the Opposition and seeks to have the case dismissed. This was not discussed during the meet and confer process, nor raised at any time prior to the Opposition. The Opposition is a disguised motion seeking affirmative relief and is defective on its face and should be overruled. There is no prejudice to the City by setting a trial at this time on a case tried to the Court (not a jury), which requires no witnesses, which allows for no discovery and which is solely ruled upon an administrative record, briefs and arguments. There is no basis not to set a trial in this matter, to deny Plaintiff her day in Court and to not to rule on this case on the merits, as is the long-standing policy of California courts. Although Plaintiff contends that there is no neglect present in this matter, to the extent there is, it is excusable.

The Court’s Conclusions

Setting a trial date makes sense.