Corrigan v. Kent CA2/6

Filed 11/12/14 Corrigan v. Kent CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

PATRICK CORRIGAN et al., 2d Civil No. B247707 (Super. Ct. No. 1384882) Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

JILL DORE KENT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jill Dore Kent appeals an order awarding Patrick Corrigan and Margaret Mary Ingalls attorney fees in their injunctive relief action against her. Plaintiffs alleged Kent violated a city view ordinance, and they obtained a stipulated judgment in their favor. The trial court awarded plaintiffs' attorney fees. We affirm. FACTS Plaintiffs filed a complaint for injunctive relief against Kent, "individually and as [t]rustee" of the Jill Dore Kent Living Trust. They alleged that Kent owned a home next to their property, on which a large oak tree on Kent's property obstructed their view of the ocean, a violation of Santa Barbara City view ordinance No. 5220. The ordinance established "the right of a real property owner to preserve scenic views and access to sunlight free from unreasonable obstructions caused by the growth of trees under circumstances where such views and sunlight access existed prior to the growth of the unreasonable obstruction." Plaintiffs sought an order reducing the size of Kent's tree.

In her answer, Kent alleged she had a right to maintain that tree because the relief sought was not consistent with the city's view ordinance. Plaintiffs propounded requests for admissions to Kent. Request No. 5 asked her to admit that plaintiffs "have satisfied the procedural prerequisites of the VIEW ORDINANCE in order to file their COMPLAINT." Requests Nos. 7-9 asked Kent to admit that the growth of her oak tree obstructed plaintiffs' scenic views. Request No. 17 asked her to admit that she "intentionally maintained the OAK TREE in order to cultivate its growth into the scenic views claimed by PLAINTIFFS in their COMPLAINT." Request No. 12 asked her to admit that "the reduction of the OAK TREE" on her property within the specifications plaintiffs sought "does not violate the limitations for reduction of the OAK TREE as set forth under the TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE." Other requests asked her to admit that the reduction in the size of the tree they sought did not violate the City's view ordinance and would not significantly alter or damage the tree. Kent did not file a response to the requests for admissions by the October 5, 2012, deadline. On November 29, 2012, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion to deem those requests admitted. Kent served a notice to take the deposition on plaintiff Patrick Corrigan. Her counsel filed a motion to continue discovery cutoff dates and to continue the trial date contending he needed more time for discovery. On December 14, 2012, the trial court denied Kent's motion and stated, "In view of the order deeming the requests for admission admitted, the court sees no reason to continue the matter since most of the substantive issues have been resolved." (Italics added.) "'We cannot permit the courts to become a sanctuary for chronic procrastination and irresponsibility . . . .'" Kent's counsel did not appear for the "readiness & settlement" conference. On the date set for trial, the parties settled the case and signed a stipulation "for entry of judgment." The stipulation provided: 1) plaintiffs were entitled "to view restoration and view restoration remedies provided [in Ordinance No. 5220]"; 2) the