Perry v. County of Shasta

CASE NUMBER: 26CV-0209982 DISCLOSURE: Judge Birss worked as an associate attorney at Berg and Associates from June 2014 through September 2018. His prior employment falls outside the time period requiring recusal. That prior employment does not impact his ability to be fair and impartial.

Tentative Ruling on Motion for Stay of Enforcement: Petitioner Candilyn Perry moves for an order to stay the enforcement of fines and penalties imposed by an Administrative Order issued by Respondent County of Shasta. The motion is opposed.

At the prior reviews hearing on April 27, 2026 and June 15, 2026, the issue of a stay was raised 1 and the parties appeared in agreement that the matter could be stayed. On April 27, 2026, counsel for the Petitioner was encouraged by the Court to draft an order related to his request for stay, meet and confer with counsel for the Respondent as to form and content, and submit a proposed order to the court. Petitioner’s counsel represented to the Court he would do this. However, this never occurred. On June 15, 2026, he was reminded of the Court’s request. Once again, he represented to the Court he would do this. Once again, it did not occur. Nevertheless, and despite this apparent agreement, Petitioner filed the present motion on July 23, 2026. Respondent opposes the motion.

Given the prior representations to the Court, this matter is continued to Monday, September 21, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 64. The parties are ordered to meet and confer on the issue of a stay. If the parties are able to reach an agreement, they may submit a stipulation and order. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement, the Court requires the parties to file declarations no later than September 14, 2026 which provide the parties meet and confer efforts.

Additionally, the Court notes that Petitioner filed several motions (not on calendar today) regarding the administrative record and a briefing schedule. The Court is puzzled by this, as the administrative record has been submitted to the Court and a briefing schedule was already agreed to by counsel at a prior hearing. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding these issues and inform the Court if those motions can be dropped from calendar as moot. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

1 In the Amended Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandate filed 4/22/26, Petitioner’s prayer for relief made reference to requested stay stating “(t)hat enforcement of the Order, including any penalties or collection efforts, be stayed pending final resolution of this matter”. 13