Maria Gonzalez, as guardian ad litem for Jacob Garcia v. Antonio Haro and Diana Haro

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. The appeal remains pending.

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.

In the present case, on March 6, 2026, PoloDonkey and Seidler filed their motion to stay proceedings following the jury trial in Case No. 24CV05259. Quiel and Sandoval oppose the motion to stay proceedings.

Analysis

"(a) Except as provided in Sections 917.1 to 917.10, inclusive, and in Section 116.810, the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial Court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order, but the trial Court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order. (b) When there is a stay of proceedings other than the enforcement of the judgment, the trial Court shall have jurisdiction of proceedings related to the enforcement of the judgment as well as any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order appealed from." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 916.)

" 'The purpose of the automatic stay provision of section 916, subdivision (a) ' "is to protect the appellate Court's jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided. The [automatic stay] prevents the trial Court from rendering an appeal futile by altering the appealed judgment or order by conducting other proceedings that may affect it." ' " [Citation.] (URS Corp. v. Atkinson/Walsh Joint Venture (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 872, 881.)

PoloDonkey and Seidler argue that this action should be stayed because they directly affect the pending appeal of the judgment in Case No. 24CV05259. This argument is somewhat muted by PoloDonkey and Seidler's prior arguments with respect to their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate. Relative to that opposition, PoloDonkey and Seidler argued that there was insufficient overlap of common facts and legal issues to warrant consolidation, that Sandoval's claim for Coastal Act violations and PoloDonkey's prescriptive easement claim cannot be adjudicated in the same trial, and that consolidation would complicate and confuse the issues.

In denying the motion for consolidation, the Court agreed with the opposition, finding: "That the only overlap of factual and legal issues between the Lead Case [this case] and the Related Case [Case No. 24CV05259] concerns the existence and validity of the Easement. Unlike the Lead Case, the issues in the Related Case have been narrowed down and PoloDonkey seeks merely to confirm the existence of the Express Easement (publicly recorded in 1915) and to establish the existence of a Prescriptive Easement over the Serena Property. Should the Court confirm PoloDonkey's Easement rights, the Complaint filed in the Related Case prays for injunctive relief compelling Sandoval to remove the Bamboo Fence and refrain from installing new obstructions on the Easement area." (Minute Order of Oct. 29, 2025.)

"That in the Lead Case, Sandoval alleges that any Easement rights PoloDonkey may have once had over the Serena Property have now been extinguished and/or abandoned, and thus the Bridge extends illegally onto the Serena Property and should be removed. This exhausts the factual and legal overlap between the two cases because Sandoval's remaining allegations asserted in the Lead Case have nothing to do with the limited issues of the existence and validity of the Easement set forth in the Related Case." (Minute Order of Oct. 29, 2025.)

"That Sandoval's insistence in the Motion that the background of both cases is 'nearly identical' is without merit." (Minute Order of Oct. 29, 2025.)

While correctly pointing out that PoloDonkey and Seidler's cited authorities relate only to cases where the stay took place within a single action, Plaintiffs' argument that the Court cannot stay a related case is without merit. There is no authority that prevents the Court from exercising both statutory authorities and its own inherent powers to stay this proceeding if it would accommodate the ends of justice.

"Even when the statutes do not call for an automatic stay on appeal, the trial and appellate Courts both have the power to issue discretionary stays." (Daly v. San Bernardino County Bd. of Supervisors (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1030, 1039.)

However, even though it has the power to do so, the Court does not find that it would accommodate the ends of justice to stay this action pending the appeal in the related case. As the Court found previously, there is limited overlap between this action and the related action. This action has been pending for just short of two years and there is no compelling reason that it should be stayed pending the appeal in the related case. PoloDonkey and Seidler's argument that, alternatively, this case should be stayed because Sandoval's cause of action for coastal action violations is not ripe, has been previously addressed and is unsupported by any persuasive legal authority. The motion to stay action will be denied.

Tentative Ruling: Maria Gonzalez, as guardian ad litem for Jacob Garcia v. Antonio Haro and Diana Haro

Tentative Ruling: Maria Gonzalez, as guardian ad litem for Jacob Garcia v. Antonio Haro and Diana Haro

Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time Wed, 07/15/2026 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings Plaintiffs' Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim of Jacob Garcia, a Minor

Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff Jacob Garcia, a Minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Maria Gonzalez: Bradford D. Brown

For Defendants Antonio Haro and Diana Haro: Dave Hitch, Law Offices of Richardson Fair & Cohen

RULING

For the reasons set forth herein, the motion for approval of compromise of claim of Jacob Garcia, a minor, is granted as modified: The Court approves gross settlement in the amount of $75,000.00, Medi-Cal reimbursement of $212.34, $2,993.75 in expenses, and attorneys' fees in the reduced amount of $25,000.00. The balance of $46,793.91 is to be placed in the blocked account at US Bank for the benefit of Jacob Garcia.

Plaintiff shall file a revised Order (MC-351), and a revised Order to Deposit Funds in Blocked Account (MC-355), that conforms to this order, no later than July 22, 2026. Plaintiff shall file acknowledgement from US Bank of the depositing of the funds, and receipt of the Order to Deposit Funds in Blocked Account, within 15 days of the deposit.

Background

By way of judicial council form complaint, filed on May 24, 2024, Plaintiff Jacob Garcia (Garcia), a Minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Maria Gonzalez (Gonzalez), alleges: On June 3, 2023, at 4888 Kodiak Ave, Santa Barbara, Defendants Antonio and Diana Haro's (collectively "Defendants") dog bit Garcia on the nose. (Complaint, P. GN-1.)

On July 29, 2024, Defendants answered the complaint with a general denial and 16 affirmative defenses.

On July 23, 2025, Garcia filed a notice of conditional settlement of entire case. Gonzalez and Garcia now move for approval of the compromise of the action.

Analysis

"The requirements that a guardian ad litem be appointed and that the proposed compromise of a minor's claim be approved by the trial Court exist to protect the best interests of the minor." (Pearson v. Superior Court (2012) 202 Cal.App.4 th 1333, 1338.)

"While the guardian ad litem has the power to assent to procedural steps that will facilitate a determination of the ward's case [citation], the guardian ad litem's authority is that of " ' "an agent with limited powers." ' [Citation.]" [Citation.] For example, when a guardian ad litem believes that settling a case is in the ward's best interests, that decision requires Court approval. (Code Civ. Proc., 372.) The Court has a duty to ensure that the ward's rights are protected by the guardian ad litem." (McClintock v. West (2013) 219 Cal.App.4 th 540, 549.)

"A petition for Court approval of a compromise of, or a covenant not to sue or enforce judgment on, a minor's disputed claim; a compromise or settlement of a pending action or proceeding to which a minor or person with a disability is a party; or the disposition of the proceeds of a judgment for a minor or person with a disability under Probate Code sections 3500 and 3600-3613 or Code of Civil Procedure section 372 must be verified by the petitioner and must contain a full disclosure of all information that has any bearing on the reasonableness of the compromise, covenant, settlement, or disposition. Except as provided in rule 7.950.5, the petition must be submitted on a completed Petition for Approval of Compromise of Claim or Action or Disposition of Proceeds of Judgment for Minor or Person With a Disability (form MC-350)." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.950.)

"If the petitioner has been represented or assisted by an attorney in preparing the petition for approval of the compromise of the claim or in any other respect with regard to the claim, the petition must disclose the following information: "(1) The name, state bar number, law firm, if any, and business address of the attorney; "(2) Whether the attorney became involved with the petition, directly or indirectly, at the instance of any party against whom the claim is asserted or of any party's insurance carrier; "(3) Whether the attorney represents or is employed by any other party or any insurance carrier involved in the matter; "(4) Whether the attorney has received any attorney's fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who paid the fees or other compensation; "(5) If the attorney has not received any attorney's fees or other compensation for services provided in connection with the claim giving rise to the petition or with the preparation of the petition, whether the attorney expects to receive any fees or other compensation for these services, and, if so, the amounts and the identity of the person who is expected to pay the fees or other compensation; and "(6) The terms of any agreement between the petitioner and the attorney." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.951.)

Plaintiff has submitted the following information, on the required judicial council form MC-350 (Petition), signed by Hernandez under penalty of perjury: Garcia is 7 years old with a date of birth of July 3, 2018. (Petition, P. 2.)

On June 3, 2023, at 10:00 p.m., at 4888 Kodiak Avenue, Santa Barbara, Garcia attended a get together with his mother at Defendants' home when the Defendants' mixed-breed dog bit Garcia on the nose. (Petition, P.P. 4, 5.)

Garcia sustained a one-centimeter laceration requiring an emergency visit with one suture and one follow-up visit with a plastic surgeon.. (Petition, P. 6.)

Garcia was taken to Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital where he received an x-ray of the nose to check for foreign bodies (negative), and the laceration was cleaned and sutured. Garcia had one follow-up visit with Plaintiff's expert witness plastic surgeon. There were no other visits. (Petition, P. 7.)

Garcia has recovered completely from the effects of his injuries and there are no permanent injuries. (Petition, P. 8.)

The terms of the settlement are that Defendants will pay $75,000.00 in settlement of the claim, and no payments will be made to others for claims arising out of the subject accident. (Petition, P.P. 10, 11.)

Garcia's medical expenses before any reductions total $212.34. Of that amount, total medical expenses paid total $212.34, reductions total $0, and medical expenses to be paid from settlement proceeds total $212.34. (Petition, P. 12, subd. (a).)

Medi-Cal paid $212.34 and is to be reimbursed that amount from the settlement. (Petition, P. 12, subd. (b)(4).

Garcia's attorney requests that the Court approve $30,000.00 (40 percent) from Garcia's settlement as attorney fees. (Petition, P.P. 13, subd. (a), 16 & Proposed Order P. 8.) [Note: There is a typographical error at P. 13, subd. (a) that states the amount of attorney's fees sought is $20,831.25. This is obviously an error as in multiple other sections of the petition, including the declaration of counsel and the fee agreement, attorney's fees of $30,000.00 is what is being sought.]

Garcia's attorneys claim reasonably incurred costs advanced in the amount of $2,993.75, and requests that that amount be reimbursed from the settlement proceeds. (Petition, P. 13, subd. (b).)

The net balance of settlement proceeds to be paid to Garcia totals $41,793.91. (Petition, P. 15.)

Garcia's attorney provides all the information about himself that is required by California Rules of Court, rule 7.951. (Petition, P. 17.)

Garcia, through his guardian ad litem Gonzalez, requests that the balance of his settlement, after the above disbursements, be deposited in an insured account with US Bank, located at 20 East Carrillo Street, Santa Barbara. (Petitions, P. 18, subd. (b) & Proposed Order, P. 9.)

The Court has reviewed the petition, along with the attachments, and finds that the settlement is generally fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minor Plaintiff. However, the Court intends on reducing the amount of attorney's fees from the requested 40 percent to a reasonable 33 1/3 percent of the total amount recovered, or $25,000.00.

The California Rules of Court require that the Court must use a reasonable fee standard when approving and allowing the amount of attorney's fees payable from money or property paid or to be paid for the benefit of a minor. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.955(a)(1).)

The Court must consider the terms of any representation agreement made between the attorney and the minor's representative. In determining a reasonable attorney's fee, the Court may consider the nonexclusive list of factors in the rule of Court. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.955(b).)

Three of the nonexclusive factors for the Court to consider in determining a reasonable attorney's fee are: "The amount of the fee in proportion to the value of the services performed." (Cal. Rules of Court rule 7.955(b)(2).); "The novelty and difficulty of the questions involved and the skill required to perform the legal services properly." (Cal. Rules of Court rule 7.955 (b)(3); and "The time and labor required." (Cal. Rules of Court rule 7.955(b)(8).)

While the Court acknowledges the hard work and excellent representation provided to Garcia by his attorney, this was not a particularly contentious or complicated case. Based on the declaration of Plaintiff's counsel, there was limited discovery and limited litigation in general. The Court does not find that 40 percent is justified. The Court will reduce that amount to 33 1/3 percent.

As such the Court will approve gross settlement in the amount of $75,000.00; Medi-Cal reimbursement of $212.34; reimbursement of $2,993.75 in expenses and; $25,000.00 in attorney's fees. This leaves a balance of $46,793.91 to be placed in the blocked account for the benefit of Garcia.

Tentative Ruling: LVNV Funding LLC vs Gloria Maceda