Unitarian Universalist Mission, et al. vs. The County of Santa Barbara

Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 08/05/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Defendant County of Santa Barbara's Motion for Judgment On The Pleadings Tentative Ruling For Plaintiffs Unitarian Universalist Mission and The Mission LLC: Richard Jacobs, Law Office of Richard Jacobs

For Defendant County of Santa Barbara: Rachel Van Mullem, Kristen Cortez, Office of the County Counsel

For the reasons stated herein, the motion of Defendant for judgment on the pleadings is ordered off-calendar. This case was filed 6/4/25; the answer was filed 9/25/25; it is time to resolve the issue. The Writ of Mandate is set to be heard at 10am on 12/2/26; if an evidentiary hearing is requested on the remaining 2 counts, tell the Court now; trial on those issues would begin 12/3/26. The Court does not need to set a briefing schedule unless requested.

Background

As alleged in the complaint of Plaintiffs Unitarian Universalist Mission (the Mission) and The Mission LLC (the LLC), (collectively, Plaintiffs): The LLC is a church that owns property located at 505 E. Los Olivos (the Property) in Santa Barbara, California. (Complaint, P. 15.) The Mission leased the property from the LLC. (Complaint, P. 16.) As part of that lease, the Mission receives a reduction in rent as long as the Property is deemed to fall within the "church exemption" as required by the Revenue and Taxation Code. (Complaint, P.P. 14, 17, 22-32.)

The Property is, and for approximately a century has, been used by various religious entities for church purposes, religious activities, and worship which occurs at least a few times a month with the intention of more frequent use in the future. (Complaint, P.P. 25-26 & 33.) The Property is also used by congregants for meditation and other related activities. (Complaint, P. 27.)

The County of Santa Barbara (COSB) sent an examiner to view the Property to confirm that the use falls within the church exemption, and conducted an in-person inspection of the Property. (Complaint, P.P. 19, 35.) Plaintiffs also provided the necessary documentation to COSB. (Complaint, P.P. 20, 34.) Despite the Property being used for religious purposes and falling within the church exemption, COSB refuses to grant the exemption. (Complaint, P.P. 21, 36.)

On June 4, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their petition and complaint against Defendant COSB, asserting two causes of action: (1) for writ of mandate; and (2) for declaratory and injunctive relief. On July 7, 2025, COSB filed an answer to the complaint. On September 25, 2025, COSB filed an amended answer to the complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting sixteen affirmative defenses. On April 3, 2026, COSB filed a document labeled as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs have filed an opposition to that motion.

Analysis

For the reasons discussed herein, the motion is procedurally defective and deficient, and will be ordered off calendar. "Every direction of a Court or judge, made or entered in writing, and not included in a judgment, is denominated an order. An application for an order is a motion." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1003.)

Subject to exceptions not present here, written notice must be given for a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1005, subd. (13); see also Korchemny v. Piterman (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1055-1056 [general discussion].) "Notices must be in writing, and the notice of a motion, other than for a new trial, must state when, and the grounds upon which it will be made, and the papers, if any, upon which it is to be based." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1010.) "A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(a).)

"The purpose of these requirements is to cause the moving party to 'sufficiently define the issues for the information and attention of the adverse party and the Court.' [Citation.]" (Luri v. Greenwald (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1125 (Luri).) "[C]ourts generally may consider only the grounds stated in the notice of motion." (Kinda v. Carpenter (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1277.)

The motion of COSB does not include a written notice stating the nature of the order sought, the grounds upon which that motion is made, or the papers upon which it is based. In addition, though the motion includes a citation to Code of Civil Procedure section 438 and is ostensibly made pursuant to that statute, "[t]he grounds for motion provided for in this section shall appear on the face of the