Court Trial
Hearing Date / Time Wed, 06/03/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Motion of Plaintiff Mechanics Bank for Summary Judgment or Alternatively for Summary Adjudication Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff Mechanics Bank: Tom R. Normandin, Prenovost, Normandin, Dawe & Rocha For Defendant California Organic Fertilizers, Inc., and Timothy Stemwedel: Daren A. Stemwedel
Unless counsel appears at the hearing of this motion and provides good cause otherwise, this matter is transferred to the Cook Division of this Court (Santa Maria) and the motion for summary judgment or for summary adjudication will be reset for hearing following transfer.
Discussion "For the purpose of these local rules, it shall be assumed that Santa Barbara County has been divided geographically into two separate regions hereinafter referred to as 'South County' and 'North County.' " (Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rules, rule 201.)
"[General Rule] When, under California law, 'North County' would be a 'proper county' for venue purposes, all filings for such matters shall be in the appropriate division of the Clerk's office in North County. All other filings shall be made in the Clerk's office in the appropriate division of the Court in South County." (Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rules, rule 203(a).)
"[Designation and Change of Venue] In electronic filings, the party making the filing shall designate the appropriate division of the Court based upon subdivisions (a) and (b) of this rule. The title of the Court required to be placed on the first page of documents pursuant to CRC 2.111 includes the name of the appropriate Court division. Any filing erroneously made in a division of the Court may be transferred to the appropriate division upon motion of any party or on the court's own motion." (Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rules, rule 203(c).)
"Subject to subdivision (b) [which is not applicable here], if a defendant has contracted to perform an obligation in a particular county, the superior court in the county where the obligation is to be performed, where the contract in fact was entered into, or where the defendant or any defendant resides at the commencement of the action is a proper court for the trial of an action founded on that obligation, and the county where the obligation is incurred is the county where it is to be performed, unless there is a special contract in writing to the contrary." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 395, subd. (a).)
Plaintiff Mechanic Bank's complaint asserts liability based upon promissory notes, commercial guaranties, security agreements, and business loan agreements. Each of these agreements on their face were entered into, and to be performed, in Santa Maria in North County. (Merrifield-Olivia decl., exhibits 1 at p. 7, 2 at p. 11, 3 at p. 16, 4 at p. 23, 5 at p. 31, 6 at p. 35, 7 at p. 40, 8 at p. 47.) No defendant is shown to be a resident in South County. Consequently, venue for this action is properly in North County.
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?”
The court notes that plaintiff failed to file the Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum required by Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rules, rule 1310, which would have identified the venue issue earlier. To the extent counsel appears to argue venue should remain in South County, counsel will need to explain the failure to file the required addendum.
Tentative Ruling: Dian Gardner v James Paul Gardner, Lucas Ray Merrick, all persons unknown claiming any interest in the property Tentative Ruling: Dian Gardner v James Paul Gardner, Lucas Ray Merrick, all persons unknown claiming any interest in the property Case Number
Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/15/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Court Trial Tentative Ruling Plaintiff is represented by Nathan Rogers Defendant: no response, no appearance Issue Court Trial Tentative Ruling For the reasons set out below the Court GRANTS the relief sought in the Complaint as follows: 1. The real property at issue (hereafter, the "Property") is commonly referred to as 3400 Gibraltar Road, Santa Barbara, California 93105: and 2. Judgment is entered declaring the parties' rights with respect to ownership of the Property; and 3. Judgment is entered quieting fee simple title to the Property such that James Paul Gardner owns a 40% interest, Lucas Ray Merrick owns a 30% interest, and the Estate of Nancy A. Gardner owns a 30% interest.
4. Counsel for Plaintiff will submit a judgment consistent with this Ruling.
Analysis
On 11/5/25 the operative complaint was filed; 1 count; quiet title action. The real property at issue (hereafter, the "Property") is commonly referred to as 3400 Gibraltar Road, Santa Barbara, California 93105. Plaintiff prays: 1. For a judgment declaring the parties' rights with respect to ownership of the Property; 2. For judgment quieting fee simple title to the Property such that James Paul Gardner owns a 40% interest, Lucas Ray Merrick owns a 30% interest, and the Estate of Nancy A. Gardner owns a 30% interest.
On 12/2/25 a POS was filed showing the named Defendants were served. No response was filed. On 1/28/26 a default was entered against each of the Defendants.
CMC On 2/24/26 Plaintiff filed a CMCS for the pending CMC of 3/11/26 and reported: This is an undisputed quiet title action brought by Plaintiff, Dian Gardner, naming her two brothers as nominal Defendants. Defendants intentionally defaulted because all parties agree to the relief being sought. Because default judgments are not permitted in quiet title actions, Plaintiff requests a short cause trial to testify as to the events set forth in the verified complaint.
Trial set On 3/11/26 the Court held a CMC; only Nathan Rogers, Attorney for Plaintiff (via Zoom), appeared. The Court set the case for trial on April 15, 2026, based upon the representations made in his CMCS.
The Trial Dian Gardner Testified Observations of this Testimony Consistent with what was pleaded.
The Court's Conclusions The matter shall go forward, and the Court expects to issue a ruling based upon the documents filed and the testimony given at the hearing.
Tentative Ruling: Brittanee Jackson, Michael Stewart vs Yardi Systems Inc et al