DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
22CV05100·santabarbara·Civil·Civil Law & Motion
Hearing 16 days agoDENIED

Roxanne Coles vs Carpinteria Unified School District et al

Motion to Compel Administrative Hearing

Hearing date
Aug 19, 2026
Department
Prevailing
Defendant

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffRoxanne Coles
DefendantCarpinteria Unified School District

Attorneys

Mansfield Collinsfor Plaintiff
Nichols Streetfor Defendant

Ruling

Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 08/19/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion to Compel Administrative Hearing Tentative Ruling Mansfield Collins for Plaintiff Nichols Street for Defendant

The Motion is DENIED. The request for Sanctions is DENIED. Analysis "When a Court has jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of a suit, its jurisdiction continues until a final judgment is entered. [Citation.] When there is a voluntary dismissal of an entire action, the Court's jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter terminates." (Wackeen v. Malis (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 429, 437.) On November 3, 2025, Plaintiff Roxanne Coles filed a request for dismissal of this entire action and her complaint without prejudice, which was entered that same day. This dismissal had the effect of terminating this action given there were no other causes of action asserted in any other pleadings. (See ibid.) Based on the foregoing, the Court will deny Plaintiff's motion. The request for sanctions by Defendants is also denied. This action has concluded.

Tentative Ruling: Oscar Chavez, et al. vs. Ampersand Publishing, LLC, et al. Tentative Ruling: Oscar Chavez, et al. vs. Ampersand Publishing, LLC, et al.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share