Montecristo #1 Living Trust UTD 9/24/2015 et al vs Laura Jean Nary et al

Tentative Ruling -

Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Christopher Powers Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Christopher Powers Case Number 1385628 Case Type Conservatorship - Person Hearing Date / Time Thu, 06/18/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Review of Investigator's Report Continued Tentative Ruling Appearances are required to update the court. The next review hearing is already scheduled for 05/13/2027 in SB Dept 5 of this court at 9:00 AM.

Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Chad Cothran Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Chad Cothran Case Number 1402947 Case Type Conservatorship - Person and Estate Hearing Date / Time Thu, 06/25/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Review: Investigator's Report Tentative Ruling -

Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Sarah Lamb Johnston Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Sarah Lamb Johnston Case Number 1440140 Case Type Limited Conservatorship - Person and Estate Hearing Date / Time Thu, 06/25/2026 - 09:00 Nature of Proceedings Petition for Resignation of Court Appointed Counsel for Limited Conservatee Tentative Ruling -

Tentative Ruling: Montecristo #1 Living Trust UTD 9/24/2015 et al vs Laura Jean Nary et al

Tentative Ruling: Montecristo #1 Living Trust UTD 9/24/2015 et al vs Laura Jean Nary et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Mon, 06/22/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Special Motion to Strike (Anti-SLAPP) Tentative Ruling Montecristo #1 Living Trust etc., et al., v. Laura Jean Nary, et al. Case No. 20CV03042 Hearing Date: June 22, 2026 HEARING: Plaintiff Hugo Robert Garcia's Anti-SLAPP Motion Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.16 Matters Referenced in the Parties' Stipulation Entered June 9, 2026 ATTORNEYS: For Plaintiffs and Cross-Defendants Montecristo #1 Living Trust UTD 9/24/2015 and Montecristo #2 Living Trust UTD 9/24/2015 and Cross-Defendants Hugo Roberto Garcia and Marciel Gabriela Hines: John J.

Thyne III, Lacy L. Taylor, Thyne Taylor Fox Howard, LLP For Defendants Laura Jean Nary and Kevin Russell Nary: Robert B. Forouzandeh, Riviera Law Group, PC For Defendant and Cross-Complainant Butterfly Lane Condominiums Homeowners' Association, Inc.: Lisa A. Tashjian, Beaumont Tashjian For Cross-Complainants Laura Jean Nary and Kevin Russell Nary: Christopher E. Haskell, Emily B. Harrington, Price Postel & Parma LLP TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff Hugo Robert Garcia's anti-SLAPP motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 is denied.

The matters referenced in the parties' stipulation entered June 9, 2026, are ordered off-calendar.

Background: On September 21, 2020, plaintiffs Montecristo #1 Living Trust UTD 9/24/2015 and Montecristo #2 Living Trust UTD 9/24/2015, whose trustees are Hugo Roberto Garcia (Garcia) and Marciel Gabriela Hines, respectively (collectively, Plaintiffs), filed their complaint in this action asserting eight causes of action for: (1) declaratory relief re disqualification of officer; (2) declaratory relief re improper prohibition of additional dwelling units in CC&R's; (3) interference with prospective economic advantage (as to the Narys only); (4) negligence; (5) trespass; (6) nuisance; (7) breach of contract; and (8) breach of fiduciary duty.

Plaintiffs are co-owners as tenants in common of real property located at 89 Butterfly Lane, in Santa Barbara. (Complaint, P.P. 1-2.) Defendants Laura Jean Nary and Kevin Russell Nary (collectively, Narys) are co-trustees of the Nary Family Trust UTD 3/28/2012, which is the owner of real property located at 87 Butterfly Lane. (Complaint, P.P. 3-4.) The properties located at 87 Butterfly Lane, owned by Narys, and 89 Butterfly Lane, owned by Plaintiffs, are two of three units within defendant Butterfly Lane Condominiums Homeowners' Association (the HOA). (Complaint, P. 6.)

The third unit within the HOA is at 85 Butterfly Lane and owned by defendant Laura Nary's mother, defendant Mary Mooney as trustee of the Mooney Family Trust UTD 6/4/2010. (Complaint, P. 5.) Mary Mooney has given Laura Nary power of attorney pertaining to the issues in the complaint. (Ibid.) The HOA operates pursuant to a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (the CC&R's), which was recorded on January 15, 1985. (Complaint, P. 6.) In 2014, the HOA was a defunct corporation. (Complaint, P. 17.)

Between 2014 and 2017, the Narys and the HOA harassed Plaintiffs about conditions on their property that existed prior to their purchase of their property. (Complaint, P. 22.) At the time the Narys and the HOA enforced compliance with the HOA plan against Plaintiffs, violations of the condominium plan also existed at 85 and 87 Butterfly Lane, owned by Mooney and the Narys, respectively. (Complaint, P.P. 11-14 & 37.) On June 19, 2017, fed up with the Narys, Plaintiffs decided to list 89 Butterfly Lane for sale. (Complaint, P. 23.)

On July 11, 2017, the Narys filed litigation against Plaintiffs. (Complaint, P. 24.) After filing suit, the Narys contacted the listing agent of 89 Butterfly Lane to interfere with marketing efforts of 89 Butterfly Lane by referencing the lawsuit and demanding it be disclosed to any potential purchasers. (Complaint, P. 25.) Plaintiffs had to remove their property from the market due to the Narys' involvement. (Ibid.)

On November 3, 2020, the HOA filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiffs. On November 16, 2020, the Narys and Mooney filed their cross-complaint against Plaintiffs. On November 30, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their answer to the HOA cross-complaint. On February 1, 2021, Plaintiffs requested, and the court entered, dismissal without prejudice as to defendant Mooney on Plaintiffs' complaint. On April 12, 2021, the court ordered Santa Barbara Superior Court case number 20CV01647, entitled Kevin Russell Nary, et al. vs.

Maricel Gabriela Hines, et al. (the Related Case), related to this case. On April 13, 2021, the Narys and the HOA filed their answer to Plaintiffs' complaint, as it existed after the court sustained an unopposed demurrer of the Narys to the third cause of action and granted an unopposed motion of the Narys to strike portions of the complaint. On March 22, 2022, with leave pursuant to court order signed on March 21 and entered on March 22, 2022, the HOA filed its first amended cross-complaint (FACC) against Plaintiffs.

On April 29, 2022, Plaintiffs filed their answer to the HOA's FACC. On May 6 and May 9, 2022, the court entered orders in regard to the terms of a judicially supervised settlement agreement and retained jurisdiction over this case and the Related Case. "The terms of the judicially supervised settlement agreement, enforceable under CCP 664.6, are placed on the record as transcribed by the court reporter and rehearsed by Counsel, Tara Radley. [P.] The Court maintains jurisdiction over both matters." (Minute Order, entered May 6 & 9, 2022.)

On January 31, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal of the entire action, with prejudice, which was entered as requested by Plaintiffs on February 1, 2023.

Almost three years went by with no filing activity in this action. Then, on December 19, 2025, the Narys filed a motion (664.6 Motion) "to Enforce Settlement Agreement Pursuant to [Code of Civil Procedure section] 664.6." As argued in the Narys' 664.6 Motion, plaintiff Garcia and one of the plaintiff trusts filed a new case (New Case) on May 12, 2025, based on matters addressed in the Settlement Agreement, breaching the covenant not to sue and the mandatory pre-suit mediation provision. The New Case is entitled, Garcia, et al. v.

Butterfly Lane Condominium Owners Association, et al., Santa Barbara Superior Court case No. 25CV02983. On April 8, 2026, plaintiff Garcia filed a special motion to strike in response to the Narys' 664.6 Motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (anti-SLAPP Motion). As argued by Garcia in his anti-SLAPP Motion, the Narys' 664.6 Motion sought to collaterally attack Garcia's complaint in the New Case which is a privileged filing under the litigation privilege, codified in Civil Code section 47, subdivision (b).

On April 13, 2026, the court denied the Narys' 664.6 Motion without prejudice on the grounds that it requested relief other than the entry of judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement, among other grounds. On June 9, 2026, the Narys filed an opposition to Garcia's anti-SLAPP Motion on the grounds that the Narys' 664.6 Motion is not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute, among other grounds.

Analysis: Under California's anti-SLAPP statute, "[a] cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 425.16, subd. (a).)

A "special motion may be filed within 60 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court's discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 425.16, subd. (f).) "For purposes of this section, 'complaint' includes 'cross-complaint' and 'petition' ...." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 425.16, subd. (h).) Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 provides, "[i]f parties to pending litigation stipulate, in a writing signed by the parties outside of the presence of the court or orally before the court, for settlement of the case ... the court, upon motion, may enter judgment pursuant to the terms of the settlement." (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 664.6, subd. (a).) "An application for an order is a motion." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1003.) "A motion ... is deemed to have been made and to be pending before the court for all purposes, upon the due service and filing of the notice of motion...." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1005.5.)

Here, the initial issue presented is whether the Narys' 664.6 Motion is a complaint, petition, or cross-complaint as those terms are used in the anti-SLAPP statute. Garcia does not cite any case law holding that a motion to enter judgment on the terms of a settlement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 is a complaint, petition, or cross-complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. Importantly, the anti-SLAPP filing deadline is triggered by the service of a complaint, petition, or cross-complaint. (Code Civ.

Proc., Sec. 425.16, subds. (a), (f), (h).) The Narys did not serve a new complaint, petition, or cross-complaint on Garcia. (See Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 422.10 [complaints and cross-complaints]; Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1290 [petitions in the context of arbitration]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.6(5) [petitions in the context of actions other than general civil actions].) Garcia's motion is not directed at a complaint, petition, or cross-complaint, served by the Narys. (See ibid.) "Section 425.16 provides that '[a] cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States or California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.' [Citation.]

This 'cause of action' must be contained in a complaint, cross-complaint, petition or similar pleading initiating a judicial proceeding." (Tendler v. www.jewishsurvivors.blogspot.com (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 802, 807, italics in original text.)

The Narys' 664.6 Motion is a motion in an action that has long-since settled. The court finds that, under these circumstances, the Nary's 664.6 Motion is not a complaint, petition, or cross-complaint containing a cause of action under the anti-SLAPP statute and is not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. (See Tendler, 164 Cal.App.4th at p. 805 ("[A] request for subpoenas does not fall within section 425.16, and therefore the superior court erred in granting the [anti-SLAPP] motion and in awarding attorney's fees."); see also In re Marriage of Benner (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 177, 194 ["party's request that the trial court set an expert's compensation under Evidence Code section 730, [does not] constitute[] a claim by the party against the expert for purposes of the anti-SLAPP statute."].)

The court reviewed Navellier v. Sletten (2002) 29 Cal.4th 82, cited by Garcia. Navellier involved the filing and service of a new cross-complaint for breach of a settlement agreement. Navellier did not involve a motion to enter judgment on the terms of a settlement agreement under Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6. The court finds that Navellier is distinguishable for these reasons. For all these reasons, the court will deny Garcia's anti-SLAPP Motion.

The court has also reviewed the parties' stipulation entered on June 9, 2026. The stipulated order was signed by the parties on June 3, 2026, and required the Narys to file their previously served motion to enforce judgment, with Plaintiffs' opposition due on or before June 10, 2026, and a reply thereafter. The stipulation requested that the court rule on the Narys' motion to enforce judgment at this hearing. The court's records do not reflect any of the anticipated filings referenced in this stipulation. The court will order these matters off-calendar.

Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Arnulfo Antonio Navarrete Payan Tentative Ruling: Conservatorship of Arnulfo Antonio Navarrete Payan Case Number