Tentative Ruling

Judge Thomas Anderle
Department 3 SB-Anacapa
1100 Anacapa Street P.O. Box 21107 Santa Barbara, CA 93121-1107

FAMILY LAW
Kathleen Dagg v. Benjamin Badillo
Case No: 19CV06532
Hearing Date: Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:30

Nature of Proceedings: Req. for Order: Harassment Restraining Order

Harassment Restraining Order

Attorneys:

Lynn & O’Brien by Angelina Rose Lane for Plaintiff

Gabriela Ferreira for Defendant

Ruling: For the reasons set out below the case is continued to May 26, 2020; the temporary orders in effect will remain in effect pending the hearing on 5/26/20; the restraining order filed on 12/11/19, against Benjamin Badillo, shall remain in full force and effect until the end of the hearing set on 5/26/20, or until further order of the Court.

Analysis: This is a request for CHRO; the case was filed on 12/11/19; a TRO was signed by the Commissioner and filed 12/13/19 that provided stay-away orders [5 yards]; POS is in the file; on 12/31/19 Attorney Angelina Lane for Plaintiff and Gabriela Ferreira for Defendant appeared and requested a continuance to allow time to discuss possible consolidation of all related cases. The matter was continued. Status reports are due one week before the hearing. It was also ordered that the restraining order filed on 12/11/19, against Benjamin Badillo, shall remain in full force and effect until the end of the hearing set on 02/25/20, or until further order of the court.

On 2/20 counsel for Angeleina Rose filed a Status Report; tells the Court [summarized]; in an effort to forge a settlement, Petitioner’s counsel notified Respondent’s counsel that she intended on providing Respondent’s counsel with numerous audio and video recordings demonstrating Ben’s harassment. Counsel expected to have the recordings to opposing counsel in early January, however, this ended up being an arduous task and took counsel much longer than expected to produce the recordings. The recordings were provided to Respondent’s counsel on February 6, 2020. Simultaneous to the restraining order cases, there is a pending civil action between Petitioners and Respondent’s grandmother (and owner of the real property where Respondent resides) regarding a termination of easement unilaterally drafted and recorded by Respondent’s grandmother; this matter is currently assigned to Dept. 4 of the above entitled court, case 19CV06481. Litigation is in the early stages but these matters all involve the same parties, real property, and many of the same issues. Rather than consolidate all the temporary restraining orders now, counsel for both parties believe that it would serve their clients to engage in settlement discussions in all matters, including the easement action, in hopes of reaching a global settlement. Petitioner’s request would be to leave all the cases in their respective courts, and to continue the temporary orders in this case and schedule another status update three (3) months from now. If at that point, the parties are not close to settlement, then the parties will decide prior to the next status conference where to consolidate the restraining orders to and select a date for an evidentiary hearing.

The Court’s Conclusions

Continued to May 26, 2020; the temporary orders in effect will remain in effect pending the hearing on 5/26/20; the Court will not be inclined to continue the matter again.