Motion to Stay Proceedings
Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/13/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion of Defendants Robert Seidler and PoloDonkey, LLC to Stay Proceedings in Case after Jury Trial in Related Case No. 24CV05259 Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff Diana Sandoval, trustee of the Sandoval Quiel Revocable Living Trust: Stephen M. Sanders, Jeff G. Coyner, Sanders Coyner Cade PC For Defendants PoloDonkey, LLC and Robert Seidler: Todd A. Amspoker, Jeff F. Tchakarov, Price Postel & Parma LLP
For all reasons discussed herein, the hearing on this matter is continued until June 24, 2026, at 10 a.m., to be heard concurrently with the hearing on the motion to stay enforcement of the judgment in Case No. 24CV05259.
Background/Analysis This action commenced on August 5, 2024, by the filing of the original petition and complaint by plaintiff Diana Sandoval, trustee of the Sandoval Quiel Revocable Living Trust (Sandoval) against defendants County of Santa Barbara Department of Planning and Development (CSBDPD) for: (1) Writ of Administrative Mandamus, (2) Nuisance, and (3) Negligence.
In the original complaint, PoloDonkey was identified as the real party in interest.
On February 6, 2025, Sandoval filed her operative second amended petition for writ of mandate and complaint for damages (SAC), asserting causes of action for: (1) Writ of Administrative Mandamus, (2) Writ of Mandate, (3) Violation of California Coastal Act, (4) Nuisance, (5) Negligence, (6) Inverse Condemnation, (7) Fraud/Deceit, (8) Negligent Misrepresentation, (9) Waste & Trespass, (10) Ejectment, (11) Quiet Title on Easement & Action for Possession Based on Unlawful Use, and (12) Declaratory Relief, against defendants CSBDPD, County of Santa Barbara Board of Building Appeals (collectively the "County Defendants"), California Coastal Commission (the "Coastal Commission"), PoloDonkey, and Robert Seidler (Seidler).
Following the sustaining of demurrers, without leave to amend, Sandoval's complaint was dismissed as to the County Defendants and the Coastal Commission.
As alleged in the SAC: Sandoval is the owner of real property located at 3196 Serena Avene, Carpinteria (the Serena Property). (SAC, P. 1.)
PoloDonkey owns real property located at 3215 Foothill Road, in Carpinteria, California (the Foothill Property). (SAC, P. 5.)
Seidler is the principal, beneficiary, and interested owner of PoloDonkey. (SAC, P. 6.)
On or before October 30, 2006, PoloDonkey's predecessor in interest, through its manager and principal Michael Rothbard (Rothbard), confirmed in writing that they would abandon one existing residential driveway and the use therefore of the Serena Property easement, road access, and previous bridge. (SAC, P. 34 & Exh. 12.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Rothbard expressly stated to the County that they would create two new driveways, one for residential access and one for commercial equestrian facility use, both of which driveways were located with access onto Foothill Road. (Ibid.)
Rothbard, and PoloDonkey's predecessor company, maintained this abandonment of the Serena Property easement and did not use the tertiary road and previous bridge associated with the easement until Rothbard sold the Foothill Property to PoloDonkey. (SAC, P. 35.)
PoloDonkey, through Seidler, purchased the Foothill Property on July 31, 2014, and thereafter used it unlawfully, without permitted use or entitlement thereto, or right of legal access to the Serena Property. (SAC, P. 36.)
In 2016, Siedler misrepresented and submitted on behalf of PoloDonkey an application stating, "Access will continue to be provided off of Foothill Road" without reference to or disclosure of PoloDonkey's and Siedler's unlawful use of the expressly abandoned bridge and the Serena Property easement. (SAC, P. 37.)
On June 30, 2025, Seidler and PoloDonkey answered the SAC admitting some allegations and denying others.
Related Case: On December 18, 2024, Sandoval filed a notice of related case regarding Case No. 24CV04379, PoloDonkey v. Quiel, et al.
In that matter: On September 23, 2024, plaintiff PoloDonkey, LLC, (PoloDonkey) filed a verified complaint against defendants Tyler N. Quiel (Quiel) and Diana Sandoval (Sandoval) (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging six causes of action: (1) interference with easement; (2) private nuisance; (3) quiet title; (4) declaratory relief; (5) temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctions; and (6) quiet title to prescriptive easement.
As alleged in the complaint: PoloDonkey owns real property located at 3215 Foothill Road/3200 Serena Avenue, in Carpinteria, California. (Compl., P. 8.)
Defendants are the owners of property located at 3196 Serena Avenue, in Carpinteria, California. (Compl., P. 9.)
The PoloDonkey Property is benefitted by an express easement located on a portion of the Serena Property. (Compl., P.P. 11-13.)
Contrary to the express language of the easement, Defendants have maintained a fence on and across the easement, blocking PoloDonkey's access and denying PoloDonkey a safe and unobstructed easement area. (Compl., P.P. 15-16.)
On November 26, 2024, Defendants filed a verified answer to the complaint, responding to its allegations and asserting forty-three affirmative defenses.
The matter was tried simultaneously before a jury and the court on January 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 22, and 23, 2026.
Following the presentation of each side's respective cases, judgment was entered in favor of PoloDonkey.
On February 9, 2026, the court issued its final statement of decision, and on March 17, 2026, the court signed the judgment.
The judgment requires defendants to do, or abstain from doing, several things, including: (1) refraining from interfering with PoloDonkey's valid easement, including by maintaining or installing immobile fencing on the easement area or by preventing PoloDonkey free access through a swinging gate, (2) maintaining and keeping the easement area free of any obstructions that could unreasonably interfere with PoloDonkey's use and enjoyment of the easement for its purpose and scope as set forth in the Official Records of Santa Barbara County, (3) sign and deliver to PoloDonkey, within 10 calendar days after formal written request by PoloDonkey, the Owner/Applicant Consent Form referenced in the Letter re: Determination of Application Incompleteness, dated May 9, 2025, and sent by the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department to Ms. Eva Turenchalk, and any other documents required by the County, in order to allow the County to proceed with review and processing of Plaintiff's currently pending Coastal Development Permit application submitted on April 10, 2025, (4) remove the black locked mailbox, which defendants installed at the intersection of the easement roadway and Serena Avenue and return and reinstall PoloDonkey's old mailbox to its previous location, and to refrain at any time in the future from removing or otherwise tampering with PoloDonkey's mailbox, (5) remove the bamboo fence from PoloDonkey's easement and refrain from installing any immobile fencing or other unreasonable obstructions on the easement area at any time in the future, and (6) PoloDonkey has the right to maintain and preserve the existing access bridge within its full structural footprint.
It was also ordered that PoloDonkey is entitled to recover its costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1033, et seq.
On February 10, 2026, defendants filed a notice of appeal of the judgment.
Quiel and Sandoval moved to stay enforcement of the judgment during pendency of appeal.
On May 6, 2026, the motion for stay was continued until June 24, 2026, in order to see what the Court of Appeals decides.
In the present case, on March 6, 2026, PoloDonkey and Seidler filed their motion to stay proceedings, in this case, following the jury trial in Case No. 24CV05259.
Quiel and Sandoval oppose the motion to stay proceedings.
This matter does involve some overlapping issues that may be affected by the appeal in the related case, such as whether PoloDonkey abandoned its easement.
As such, the court will continue the hearing on the present motion to June 24, 2026, to be heard with the motion to stay enforcement of the judgment in Case No.