Motion of Defendants Tyler N. Quiel and Diana Sandoval for Stay of Enforcement of Judgment During Pendency of Appeal
Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 06/24/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion of Defendants Tyler N. Quiel and Diana Sandoval for Stay of Enforcement of Judgment During Pendency of Appeal Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff PoloDonkey, LLC: Todd A. Amspoker, Jeff F. Tchakarov, Price Postel & Parma LLP For Defendants Tyler N. Quiel and Diana Sandoval: John Forest Hilbert, Joseph A. LeVota, Hilbert & Satterly LLP
For all reasons discussed herein, Defendants' motion for stay of enforcement of judgment during pendency of appeal is taken off-calendar as moot.
Background/Analysis
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 (the PoloDonkey Property). (Compl., P. 8.) Defendants are the owners of property located at 3196 Serena Avenue, in Carpinteria, California (the Serena Property). (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.
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?”
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. Defendants move to stay enforcement of the judgment during pendency of appeal. PoloDonkey did not originally file opposition or any other response to the motion to stay enforcement.
On May 6, 2026, the Court continued the motion to June 24, 2026, to see what occurred in the appeal. The Court invited further briefing on the issue.
On June 17, 2026, PoloDonkey filed a supplemental brief regarding the motion. PoloDonkey requests that the Court take judicial notice of seven records of Court. The requests for judicial notice will be granted.
By way of the supplemental brief, PoloDonkey represents: On March 26, 2026, the appellate Court entered a Temporary Stay Order, staying enforcement of the judgment pending briefing of the Supersedeas Petition. (Supp. Brief, p. 2, ll. 13-15 & RJN Exh. B.) PoloDonkey opposed the Supersedeas Petition and Defendants filed a reply brief in support. (Brief, p. 2, ll. 15-17 & RJN Exhs. C, D.) On May 13, 2026, the appellate Court entered an Order for Writ of Supersedeas, that vacated the March 26, 2026 temporary stay, staying enforcement the judgment's mandatory injunctions, and allowing the prohibitory injunctions to remain in full force and effect while the appeal is pending. (Brief, p. 2, l. 24 - p. 3, l. 1 & RJN Exh.
E.) On May 28, 2026, in the appellate case, Defendants filed a Petition for Rehearing of the Supersedeas Petition, arguing that the appellate Court overlooked certain provisions of the judgment that should be stayed. (Brief, p. 3, ll. 2-4 & RJN Exh. F.) On June 11, 2026, the appellate Court denied Defendants' Petition for Rehearing. (Brief, p. 3, l l. 9-10 & RJN Exh. J.)
As the appellate Court has already ruled on the stay of enforcement, and the requests are the same as those before this Court, the matter will be taken off-calendar as moot.
Tentative Ruling: PoloDonkey LLC v. Quiel Tentative Ruling: PoloDonkey LLC v. Quiel Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/13/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings
with PPP were unlawfully attempting to revoke the 3200 situs in violation of Fire Code Sec. 505.1.3 and state ADU protections, in effort to protect PPP's full paying client Polodonkey LLC, and on November 6, 2025, filed Case No. 25CV06984, a verified writ petition to preserve their address rights and to obtain appropriate relief regarding their ADU applications.
Timeline of Mid-Trial Fraud on Court
On November 24, 2025, County Counsel for Santa Barbara filed a Notice of Related Case to relate the Lead Case and the present action with Diana Sandoval et al. vs. County of Santa Barbara et al., Case Number 25CV06984 ("25CV06984").
On November 26, 2025, Defendants serve and file oppositions to relate the cases.
On January 22, 2026, the Court orders the cases related to the Lead Case and the present action Case No 24CV05259.
On January 7, 2026, Diana Sandoval filed a declaration in 25CV06984 alleging Planning and Development Department of acting in bad faith after identifying a change to the permitting address occurring on the first day of trial, January 5, 2026.
On January 14, 2026, the permit log for Santa Barbara County shows a call with an interested party for permits 25CDP-00037/25BDP?00544.
On January 15, 2026, during trial, Defendant Diana Sandoval testified that she applied for her ADU with 3200 Serena Avenue because that was assigned to our parcel and the County said her ADU was approved as 3200, though she hasn't seen the approval. Asked about 3200 being reassigned to Plaintiff, Diana answers she's "not sure" because "the County finally approved my permits... with 3200," putting that claimed approval at issue.
On January 15, 2026, Brown emails Turenchalk zoning stamped ADU plans, and notes "I just got your voicemail," and will check on building plans. Turnechalk tells Brown to remove the remaining 3200 Serena address references and mark the bamboo fence unpermitted and linked to 25CDH?00031. Brown sends revised plans, saying she removed 3200 and synced zoning/BDP sheets but won't add to be permitted for 25CDH?00031 yet.
On January 15, 2026, Brown emailed Quiel stamping the ADU plans as approved. Thereon, Brown emailed Quiel again the revised ADU plans that supersede the prior set and uses the plans with the changed address reference from 3200 Serena to 3196.
On January 16, 2026, during Defendant Diana Sandoval's examination, she is shown Trial Exhibit 377, to which she responds to have never seen it before. Thereon, the Court excluded Trial Exhibit 377 as hearsay and lacking foundation. In addition, questioned if her approved ADU plans had 3200 Serena struck and 3196 added, Diana says she's unaware, has no plans, and notes Plaintiff's counsel has permitting documents she does not.
On January 16, 2026, Brown emailed Turenchalk updated ADU plans to reference a voicemail from Turenchalk and promising to check the building plans. Thereon, Brown emailed Defendant Tyler Quiel apologizing for the wrong 3200 Serena address and sent an alleged final plan showing 3196 on all pages despite that address being disputed.
Later that day, on January 16, 2026, Turenchalk again leaves a voicemail to Brown wherein this confirms the existence of another voicemail.
At trial on January 16, 2026, during Defendant Tyler Quiel's testimony, Trial Exhibit 377 is shown, which Defendant states he has never seen before. "No, I've never seen it," and adds he hasn't checked his email and is concerned his permitting is "coming through your counsel" (PPP); the Court strikes the comment and does not admit the exhibit.
On January 16, 2026, during Turenchalk's testimony as a witness at trial, testifies that Brown emailed her Trial Exhibit 377 on January 15, 2026, and said that the plans show several cross’outs changing 3200 Serena to 3196. The Court excludes the exhibit but lets Turenchalk's testimony in, and she does not reveal she directed many of those edits.
On January 20, 2026, Judge Anderle, in the middle of the trial, relates the Case 24CV05259 and 2506984 without addressing the objections filed by Defendants on November 16, 2025.
On January 20, 2026, LoMonaco (also a PPP client) says he received Defendants' ADU plans, saw 3200 Serena, crossed out 3200 and wrote 3196 as it was the only address that hasn't been contested. While Ex. 380 is excluded from the record, LoMonaco's verbal testimony reaches the jury and conflicts with Brown's role.