Hearing re Administrative Record
makes no attempt to show good cause justifying discovery of communications between Plaintiff's guardian ad litem and Plaintiff's attorney. Further, despite Torbet's argument to the contrary, communications between the guardian ad litem and Plaintiff's attorney are privileged pursuant to Evidence Code section 954, subdivision (b) and Evidence Code section 953, subdivision (b)(1). Plaintiff will not be ordered to provide a further response.
Attorney Hugo Torbet's Continued Lack of Civility and Professionalism: Torbet's attorney was previously admonished regarding his personal attacks against Plaintiff's attorney and was ordered to refrain from doing so. On December 17, 2025, the Court reminded attorney Hugo Torbet: " ' "Personal attacks on opposing counsel are improper and irrelevant to the issues." ' " [Citations.]" (People v. Woodruff (2018) 5 Cal.5th 697, 764.) Counsel shall not "make personally insulting or derogatory remarks directed at opposing counsel or impugn counsel's motives or character." (Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency v.
Dhaliwal (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 1315, 1338-1339.) "Personal attacks on the integrity of opposing counsel can constitute misconduct." (People v. Winbush (2017) 2 Cal.5th 402, 484.) "A lawyer must work to advance the lawful and legitimate interest of his or her client. This duty includes an obligation not to act abusively or disCourteously. Zealous representation of the client's interest should be carried out in a professional manner." (Santa Barbara County Local Rules, Appendix 5, P. A.1.) Zealous advocacy does not equate to unprofessional remarks.
Rather than refrain from his personal attacks, they have gotten more vitriolic and are now being directed at both Plaintiff's attorney and Plaintiff. Civility is very important to this Court and calling Plaintiff things such as a "mentally incompetent person," or an "uneducated nineteen year-old with mental defects," is unacceptable. The Court considered issuing an order to show cause re: personally sanctioning Hugo Torbet or holding him in contempt of Court for intentionally violating the Court's order that he conduct himself in a professional and civil manner.
The Court will give Hugo Torbet another opportunity to conduct himself as he should, but he should be aware that the Court will not continue tolerating such a lack of civility.
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?”
Tentative Ruling: Friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh vs California Coastal Commission Tentative Ruling: Friends of the Carpinteria Salt Marsh vs California Coastal Commission Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 07/08/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Hearing re Administrative Record Tentative Ruling Marc Chytilo, Doug Carstens, for Petitioner Andrew Contreras, Patrick Tuck, Claire Wilkens, for Coastal Commission Beth Collins, Daniel Brunton, Cameron, for Real Party in Interest
RULING This is a petition for writ of mandate involving a coastal development permit approval by the Coastal Commission for a residential development under unusual circumstances. There are both procedural and substantive issues. The approval process was by the Commission alone (not the County of Santa Barbara) through a consolidated process that is itself a subject of this challenge. The Commission's approval was based on the Takings Exception, which involves an overlay of constitutional law, and is also a subject of the challenge. There is a CEQA challenge in addition to claims made under the Coastal Act. There is a 4,300+ page administrative record.