Enzo Carlos et al vs Angela Catherine Canfield

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

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. The Court needs more time and continues the matter to July 29, 2026, at 10 am in order to give sufficient time to address these numerous and nuanced issues. No appearances required on July 8, 2026.

Tentative Ruling: Enzo Carlos et al vs Angela Catherine Canfield Tentative Ruling: Enzo Carlos et al vs Angela Catherine Canfield Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 06/03/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motions to Compel Tentative Ruling Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Monica Robles. Attorneys for Defendant: Jennifer Tseng, H. Daniel Burrows, Summer Massey. Issue Motions to Compel RULING These are two motions to compel compliance with deposition subpoenas issued to Chubb Group of Insurance Companies, and California Managed Imaging Medical Group, respectively. No opposition or other response has been filed.

Both motions attach the respective deposition subpoenas. Neither motion attaches a completed or signed proof of service as to a deposition subpoena. Both proofs of service check contradictory boxes as to the person serving, stating that the person serving the subpoena is both a registered California process server and not a registered California process server. In the absence of proof that either deposition subpoena was served on the respective deponent, both motions are denied without prejudice.

The Trial Date of 11/4/26 is confirmed.

Tentative Ruling: Robert Ottinger v Paul P Weishaar et al