Case Name Date SettledAmount Description Notes
Clare Hartman v. City of Santa Rosa, and DOES 1 to
10 12/15/2025 $205,000.00 Plaintiff alleged wrongful termination, discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation and
retaliation.
Ms. Hartman had been employed as the Director of Planning and Economic Development and was terminated in September 2023.
In February 2024, Ms. Hartman submitted a claim to the City, alleging she was terminated based on age, gender, and/or disability. In April 2024, Ms. Hartman filed a lawsuit alleging wrongful termination based on those and related allegations. Per City policy, in March 2024, the City retained an independent outside attorney workplace investigator to investigate Ms. Hartman’s discrimination claims. In August 2024, the investigator concluded the decision to terminate Ms. Hartman was not based on her age, gender, or disability and found no wrongdoing by the City. In July 2025, the Court entered summary adjudication in favor of the City as to the age discrimination claim, and determined the gender and disability claims should be determined at trial.
The City continues to deny all liability in this case.
Settlement of claims asserted by former City
Manager Maraskeshia Smith
12/3/2025 $250,000.00 Claimant alleged a variety of employment-related claims.
The City entered into a release and waiver of claims agreement with former City Manager Maraskeshia Smith to amicably resolve disputes Smith raised about terms in her employment agreement and other confidential employment-related concerns.
This is not a separation agreement. Former City Manager Smith submitted her resignation in September 2025 announcing her last day with the City would be January 2, 2026; the parties’ discussions about the agreement started after Smith announced her departure. By entering into the agreement, Smith waived all potential claims about her employment.
SETTLEMENTS AUTHORIZED BY COUNCIL IN CLOSED SESSION THAT WERE FINALIZED IN DECEMBER 2025, WHICH INCLUDES BUT MAY NOT BE LIMITED TO ALL SETTLEMENTS REQUIRING THE CITY TO PAY MORE THAN $50,000 Claimant Name Date of Claim Date of Incident Claim Amount Location Description of Claim Graham, Michael R. 12/5/2025 7/11/2025 Over $35,000 Roadway, approximately located at 3191 Cleveland
Ave, Santa Rosa
Claimant alleges bodily injury due to dangerous road
condition while riding his bike
Amburn, Justin 12/4/2025 5/22/22-current TBD Multiple locations in Santa Rosa
Claimant alleges a coordinated harassment and
surveillance by SRPD offices from 2022 through
March 2025. (Note: City received an Application for
Leave to Present Late Claim under CA Govt Code
Section 911.4. Complaint previously served on
10/28/2025.)
McClendon, Cheri 11/24/2025 2/2/2025 Under $35,000 Sonoma Highway at Farmer's Lane
Claimant alleges vehicle damage due to pothole
Norman, Tyler 11/17/2025 6/2/2025 Over $35,000 West Third Street near Arboleda Drive
Claimant alleges Timothy Norman was driving with
passengers Logan, Tyler and Mason Norman, when a
City vehicle executed an unsafe lane change and
struck Norman's vehicle, causing Norman's vehicle to
go into the center median where it collided head-on
with a tree.
Norman, Mason 11/17/2025 6/2/2025 Over $35,000 West Third Street near Arboleda Drive
Claimant alleges Timothy Norman was driving with
passengers Logan, Tyler and Mason Norman, when a
City vehicle executed an unsafe lane change and
struck Norman's vehicle, causing Norman's vehicle to
go into the center median where it collided head-on
with a tree.
Norman, Logan 11/17/2025 6/2/2025 Over $35,000 West Third Street near Arboleda Drive
Claimant alleges Timothy Norman was driving with
passengers Logan, Tyler and Mason Norman, when a
City vehicle executed an unsafe lane change and
struck Norman's vehicle, causing Norman's vehicle to
go into the center median where it collided head-on
with a tree.
Norman, Timothy 11/17/2025 6/2/2025 Over $35,000 West Third Street near Arboleda Drive
Claimant alleges he was driving with passengers
Logan, Tyler and Mason Norman, when a City vehicle
executed an unsafe lane change and struck his
vehicle, causing his vehicle to go into the center
median where it collided head-on with a tree.
NEW CLAIMS REFERRED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE IN DECEMBER 2025 Case Number Full Case Name Status Category Case Description Case Notes Amount Claimed Dismissed Date Settled Date Settlement Details
CODE ENFORCEMENT/RECEIVERSHIP
25CV02452 FOUNTAINGROVE 2013, LLC, a California limited liability company, v. CITY OF SANTA ROSA, and
DOES 1-50, inclusive
Active - Pleadings Code Enforcement/Receivership Notice of appeal of decision of administrative hearing officer in re 2005 Stagecoach Road, Santa Rosa, CA (Govt. Code § 53069.4) The Administrative Hearing Officer determined that Fountaingrove 2013 LLC, the responsible party, failed to abate multiple violations of the Santa Rosa City Code and did not comply with the requirements of the Vacant Building and Lot Program, including the obligations to post signage, maintain the property, and conduct regular inspections at 2005 Stagecoach Road. Summons and Complaint served on
04/25/2025 relating to 2097 Stagecoach Rd; City lodged the Administrative Hearing Record on 05/13/2025; Initial Case Management Conference conducted for 08/28/2025; Parties ordered to meet and confer on consolidating the matter with case 25CV02452; Case Management Conference was held on 10/16/2025 where the Court ordered consolidation of the case with 25CV02453; Further Case Management Conference set for 03/19/2026.
25CV02453 FOUNTAINGROVE 2013, LLC, a California limited liability company, v. CITY OF SANTA ROSA, and
DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Active - Pleadings Code Enforcement/Receivership Appeal of decision of administrative hearing officer in re 2097 Stagecoach Road, Santa Rosa, CA (Govt. Code § 53069.4)
The Administrative Hearing Officer determined that Fountaingrove 2013 LLC, the responsible party, failed to abate multiple violations of the Santa Rosa City Code and did not comply with the requirements of the Vacant Building and Lot Program, including the obligations to post signage, maintain the property, and conduct regular inspections at 2097 Stagecoach Road. Summons and Complaint served on
04/25/2025 relating to 2097 Stagecoach Rd; City lodged the Administrative Hearing Record on 05/13/2025; Initial Case Management Conference held 09/18/2025; on 10/16/2025 the Court ordered consolidation of the case with 25CV02452; Further Case Management Conference set for 03/19/2026.
25CV06075 Penngrove Adobe, LLC v. City of Santa Rosa Active Code Enforcement/Receivership Notice of Administrative Appeal under Government Code 53069.4(b) related to 1826 Ramon Way (City Administrative Enforcement Order - File #CE19-0914)
Notice of Administrative Appeal served on 9/12/2025; Hearing held on 10/22/2025 to set briefing schedule; Hearing on Appeal scheduled for 02/18/2026.
CONSTITUTIONAL
2:25-cv-00814-BJR Martin Luther King, Jr. County (King County), et al. v.
Turner, et al.
Appeal Constitutional Santa Rosa joined what is now nearly 60 other public agency plaintiffs in a lawsuit challenging unlawful attempts by the federal administration to require local governments receiving federal grants from DOT, HUD, and HHS to implement the President’s expansive anti-immigration, anti-DEI, anti-LGBTQ+ and anti- choice policies. Because Santa Rosa does not receive HHS grants, Santa Rosa challenges only the unlawful DOT and HUD grant funding conditions. Motion for a preliminary injunction in favor of new plaintiffs (including Santa Rosa) granted on 8/12/25.
Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed on 5/2/2025; preliminary injunction granted in favor of original sets of plaintiffs on 6/3/2025 which the federal government appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on 6/9/2025; motion for a preliminary injunction to protect all new plaintiffs, including City of Santa Rosa, from enforcement of the challenged DOT, HUD and HHS grant funding conditions was granted on 8/18/2025. The federal government appealed from that ruling to the Ninth Circuit. Oral Argument for the first appeal is scheduled before the Ninth Circuit appeal on 2/9/2026.
On 11/21/2025, the Ninth Circuit stayed the second appeal pending its resolution of the first appeal.
3:25-cv-01350-WHO City and County of San Francisco, et al. v. Donald J.
Trump, et al.
Appeal Constitutional Lawsuit brought by cities and counties nationwide against the President and federal administration, challenging executive orders and directives that try to withhold federal funding from local governments unless the local governments help with enforcement of federal civil immigration laws.
Original Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed by original plaintiffs on 2/7/2025; the Court issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the original plaintiffs on 4/25/2025 which was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on June 20, 2025; Motion to file a Second Amended Complaint granted 8/5/2025 adding 34 new cities and counties (including City of Santa Rosa) as plaintiffs; Court granted preliminary injunction in favor of new plaintiffs on 8/22/2025; Oral argument before Ninth Circuit was heard on 12/5/2025.
LITIGATION AS OF JANUARY 8, 2025
Case Number Full Case Name Status Category Case Description Case Notes Amount Claimed Dismissed Date Settled Date Settlement Details LITIGATION AS OF JANUARY 8, 2025
3:25-cv-08330 County of Santa Clara, et al. v. Kristi Noem, et al. Active Constitutional On September 30, 2025, Santa Rosa joined more than two dozen other local governments nationwide – including City of Petaluma, County of Sonoma, and Sonoma Water -- in a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the heads of those agencies.
The lawsuit, County of Santa Clara v. Noem, challenges unlawful attempts by the Trump administration to require local
governments receiving DHS and FEMA grants to use local
resources to implement federal policies.
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed by plaintiffs 9/20/2025. Preliminary Injunction granted in favor of plaintiffs, including Santa Rosa, on 11/21/2025.
GENERAL LITIGATION
3:18-CV-01955-VC Nicholle Vannucci, Ellen Brown, and Shannon Hall, individuals; and Homeless Action!, an
unincorporated association v. County of Sonoma,
Sonoma County Community Development
Commission, City of Santa Rosa, and Does I to XX
Active - Set for Trial General Litigation - Constitutional and ADA
Complaint for Declaratory Relief and Injunctive Relief (homeless encampments)
Discovery was underway when case was stayed on 1/19/2024 pending a decision by the United States Supreme Court in Grants Pass v.
Johnson; Stay was lifted following Supreme Court decision and the parties stipulated to limited discovery; 1/29/2025 Settlement Conference was unsuccessful; Defendants' motions for summary judgment on standing was denied; 8/28/2025 Settlement Conference was unsuccessful; 9/16/2025 Settlement Conference was
unsuccessful; Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment against City was heard on 12/18/2025; Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgement was denied; Pretrial Conference set for 2/17/2026; Trial set for 3/2/2026.
SCV-264530 David Pelayo, Roberto Hernandez, Edmond Andre, Bryan Munoz, and Brian Medeiros, each as an
individual, and on behalf of the general public for all those similarly situated v Utility Partners of America, LLC, a Delaware corporation; City of Santa Rosa and
DOES 1 through 250, inclusive.
Appeal General Litigation – Wage Claim Plaintiffs allege failure to pay prevailing wages and related compensation versus employer UPA for public works project; UPA alleges City is obligated to defend and indemnify UPA.
Court granted UPA's motion for summary judgment on equitable indemnity; Court overruled UPA's demurrer to City's cross-complaint for contractual indemnity, thereby leaving both UPA's and the City's claims for indemnity in place; Although global mediation was unsuccessful, City and Plaintiffs separately reached a tentative settlement, which was approved by the Court on 4/11/2023; The settlement provided for the City's payment of $250,000 in exchange for full release of liability in the case. Approval of the settlement was affirmed by the Court of Appeal on 6/14/2023; The City has no further liability in the matter, but retained additional rights; Bench Trial on City's breach of contract claim against UPA was completed on 5/28/2025 ; the trial court rendered a judgment in favor of the City on 8/7/2025, requiring UPA to pay the City damages in the amount of $656,682.74; City filed a Motion for Costs on 8/22/2025; Court denied City's Motion for Costs; UPA filed a Notice of Appeal of the City's judgement; City filed a Cross-Appeal related to the denial of City's request for attorney fees and costs; The scheduling order is pending.
According to Proof 6/14/2023 $250,000.00
OTHER LITIGATION
24CV02519 LUCAS BOHANAN v. CITY OF SANTA ROSA, and
DOES 1-25
Active - Set for Trial Other Plaintiff alleges disability discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation and retaliation
Complaint was served on City on 5/7/2024; First Amended Complaint filed on 6/13/2024; City filed an Answer to the First Amended Complaint on 7/10/2024; Plaintiff filed his Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint on 7/15/2025; Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint was granted; Second Amended
Complaint was filed on 11/7/2025; Defendant Doe 1 replaced with LWP Claims Solutions, Inc.; City filed an Answer to the Second Amended Complaint on 12/19/2025; City's Motion for Protective Order granted on 12/17/2025; City's Motion for Summary Judgement to be heard on 5/06/2026; City's ex parte request to shorten time on Motion for Summary Judgement hearing denied; discovery continues; Trial set for 3/20/2026; further trial continuance to be determined.
According to Proof
Case Number Full Case Name Status Category Case Description Case Notes Amount Claimed Dismissed Date Settled Date Settlement Details LITIGATION AS OF JANUARY 8, 2025
24CV02546 CLARE HARTMAN v. CITY OF SANTA ROSA, and DOES 1 TO 10
Settled Other Plaintiff alleges wrongful termination, discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodation and retaliation.
Complaint served on City on 5/8/2024; City answered on 6/5/2024; City motion for Summary Judgment/Summary Adjudication heard on 6/13/2025 was granted in in favor of City as to gender discrimination claim, and denied as to the remaining claims; Mediation on 9/10/2025 was unsuccessful, however, parties reached a settlement after further negotiations; Notice of Conditional Settlement filed on 12/4/2025; case stayed by Court on 12/12/2025; Settlement Agreement fully executed on 12/15/2025; Request for Dismissal filed.
According to Proof 12/15/2025 205,000
24CV05523 ELIZABETH VAZQUEZ and RICHARD MILLER vs. CITY OF SANTA ROSA and DOES 1-10
Active - Set for Trial Other Complaint for damages for alleged taking of private property (Inverse condemnation).
Complaint served on City on 9/24/2024; after meet and confer, Plaintiff has agreed to file a First Amended Complaint; Judge set Order to Show Cause hearing for 7/17/2025 re Dismissal for plaintiffs' failure to timely prosecute case; Plaintiff served First Amended Complaint on 7/15/2025; City filed a timely Answer on 8/13/2025; Case Management Hearing held on 11/20/2025; Trial set for 10/02/2026.
According to Proof
25CV04325 LILI PIGSLEY, GARY PIGSLEY v. CITY OF SANTA
ROSA, CODE ENFORCEMENT, and DOES 1-10
Active - Pleadings Other Plaintiffs allege a cause of action for general negligence against the City and challenge the Administrative Enforcement Order issued following a hearing on Code Enforcement violations at their property located at 961 Stony Point Road.
Complaint filed on 06/12/2025; Summons and Complaint served on City on 12/03/2025; City was granted an extension of time to file a responsive pleading which is now due on 02/02/2026.
According to Proof
25CV05666 City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma and City of Santa Rosa Enhanced Infrastructure Financing
District (Downtown Business Corridor) v. All Persons
Interested in the Matter of the Formation of the City
of Santa Rosa Enhanced Infrastructure Financing
District (Downtown Business Corridor), Adoption of
the Infrastructure Financing Plan, Including the City
and County’s Allocation of Tax Revenues described
therein, and all proceedings relating thereto
Active - Pleadings Other This is a validation action brought pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 860 et seq. to allow the City and the County to finance vital public capital facilities and address a critical shortage of affordable housing. To achieve these objectives, the City and the County utilized a State law which authorizes a separate governmental entity called an “enhanced infrastructure financing district” to provide tax increment financing that is contingent on the EIFD carrying out its infrastructure financing services pursuant to Infrastructure Financing Plan for the EIFD in each year it receives tax revenues. This action seeks a judicial determination that the EIFD was validly established.
Complaint for Validation filed 8/14/25; Court issued Order for Publication on 8/27/25; pleadings publicly posted on 9/3/25, 9/9/25, and 9/15/25; no responsive pleading was filed and the Complaint for Validation was uncontested; Application for Default Judgment filed on 12/25/25; Proposed Default filed and awaiting signature by the assigned judge.
Not applicable
SCV-272340 JOHN DOE #1 J.B., an individual, vs. NATIONAL
COUNCIL OF YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN
ASSOCIATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA; SONOMA COUNTY FAMILY YOUNG MEN'S
CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION; SANTA ROSA
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION dba CAMP
WA-TAM; DAY; and DOES 4 through 100
Active - Set for Trial Other Alleges sexual abuse of a minor; intentional infliction of emotional distress; sexual harassment; negligence; negligent supervision; violation of civil rights; battery. Conduct alleged to have occurred in the early 1980s.
Original Complaint filed against ROE defendants on 12/29/2022; Amended Complaint adding Santa Rosa Department of Recreation and Parks a defendant filed on 4/11/2024; Amended Complaint served on City of Santa Rosa on 8/1/2024; City filed a timely responsive pleading on 9/3/2024; Discovery commenced; Plaintiff's Deposition was completed on 6/16/2025; all three Defendants' separate Motions for Summary Judgment (MSJ) set to be heard on 3/4/2026; Trial continued to 7/24/2026.
According to Proof
SCV-273655 People of the State of California, by and through Sue Gallagher, City Attorney for the City of Santa Rosa;
and City Of Santa Rosa, V. Jorge Luis Calderon
Caballero, Daniel Felix Nunez Serna, Roberto
Carrillo, Emiliano Bautista Rodriguez, Manuel Andres
Garfia, George Michael Patino Flores, Alexys Aguirre-
Serrano, Joel Vasquez Cortez, Jersain Lezama Meza,
Jesus Calderon Avalos, Neri Alberto Orea-Vasquez,
Richard Murillo Robles, Rodrigo Lopez-Tapia, and
Does 1-100
Settlement Pending Other Complaint for Public Nuisance, Civil Conspiracy, Willful Misconduct, and Violation of Fish and Game Code§ 5650(a)(l).
Defendants filed Answer on 10/30/2023; following mediation case settled with 12 of the 13 defendants, with liability expressly denied, and each settling defendant to (1) pay the City $500 for property damage, (2) participate in a 20-hour program with Restorative Resources, (3) complete volunteer work within twelve months, (4) pay $15,000 in additional damages to the City if the defendant fails to complete all other terms of the agreement within twelve months; the twelve (12) settling defendants have now completed the above community service; a stipulation to continue the trial as to the remaining defendant has been submitted to the Court to allow parties to continue settlement negotiations with the final defendant; Substitution of Attorney filed on behalf of remaining defendant Meza on 4/23/2025, now representing self; Further Case Management Conference set for 2/19/2026.
According to Proof
Case Number Full Case Name Status Category Case Description Case Notes Amount Claimed Dismissed Date Settled Date Settlement Details LITIGATION AS OF JANUARY 8, 2025
PERSONAL INJURY/DANGEROUS CONDITION
23CV01723 MARGARET AMANDA PEARSON, Individually and as
Administrator of the Estate of Atticus Pearson and
MICHAEL PEARSON, Individually and as
Administrator of the Estate of Atticus Pearson v. CITY
OF SANTA ROSA, REYNALDO ZAMORA-RUIZ, JR.,
ROSALIE JULIANA LEHANE and DOES 1 through 25
(MINOR)
Settlement Pending Personal Injury/Dangerous Condition Claimants allege a dangerous condition in crosswalk resulting in their son being struck by motor vehicle; he passed away as a result of his injuries
The City was served with the Complaint on 1/16/2024; City served with First Amended Complaint for Wrongful Death on 7/29/2024; City timely filed its responsive pleading to First Amended Complaint on 8/30/2024; Following discovery, City filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on 7/22/2025; Mediation occurred on 10/06/2025 where a conditional settlement subject to CJPRMA Board approval; CJPRMA Board approved the settlement on 12/10/2025; the parties now await approval of the settlement by the Sonoma County Superior Court Probate Dept. per Probate Code section 9835.
According to Proof
24CV01061 DAVID O'CONNELL v. CITY OF SANTA ROSA;
COUNTY OF SONOMA, WILLIAM PHILLIP RODGERS,
JOHN RODGERS; DELIA MARIA SANCHEZ, and DOES
1 through 100
Active - Set for Trial Personal Injury/Dangerous Condition Plaintiff alleges injuries due to City Bus colliding with another vehicle
First Amended Complaint filed on 3/11/2024; City filed responsive pleading and cross-complaint on 5/7/2024; Discovery is ongoing; Trial set for 6/13/2025 has been vacated; Motion to withdraw filed by plaintiff's attorney was heard on 7/23/2025 and granted; Plaintiff's deposition held on 10/13/2025 with non-appearance by Plaintiff; further Case Management Conference to reschedule held on 11/13/2025; Order to Show Cause for Failure to Prosecute set for 01/22/2026; Trial continued to 08/28/2026.
According to Proof
24CV01383 NANCY MORENO, an individual, v. GEOVANNI
RECHY CORONA, an individual; CITY OF SANTA
ROSA; and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive
Active - Set for Trial Personal Injury/Dangerous Condition Claimant alleges they were a passenger in a vehicle that was rear- ended by a CityBus resulting in bodily injuries
Complaint served on City 8/8/2024; City filed Demurrer and Opposition to Plaintiff's pending Petition for Leave to Present Late Tort Claim; Plaintiff's Petition was granted, and City's Demurrer overruled; initial Case Management Conference was held on 6/24/2025; written discovery has been completed and Plaintiff's deposition was completed on 9/22/2025; Expert discovery is commencing; Trial date is set for 2/20/2026.
According to Proof
24CV01397 MARIA GONZALEZ v. CITY OF SANTA ROSA, SARAH
ELAINE SOLOMON and DOES 1 through 25
Settlement Pending Personal Injury/Dangerous Condition Plaintiff alleges a dangerous condition of public property resulted in injuries
Complaint filed 2/22/2024; Answer to Complaint filed 4/24/2024; discovery has commenced; Plaintiff's deposition was completed on 6/11/2025; Driver's deposition was completed on 11/05/2025; Expert discovery has commenced; Mediation was held on 12/19/2025, where a settlement was reached subject to CJPRMA Board and court approval; Notice of Conditional Settlement filed on 12/22/2025, which vacated the 1/9/2026 trial date.
According to Proof
24CV05980 ROBERT LUNDGREN vs. CITY OF SANTA ROSA; and
DOES 1-20, inclusive
Active - Set for Trial Personal Injury/Dangerous Condition Claimant alleges they sustained injuries when they fell over an asphalt patch surrounding a water utility cover while riding a scooter in the bike lane
Complaint served on City on 10/15/2024; City's Answer filed on 11/13/2024; Initial Case Management Conference was held on 4/10/2025; written discovery has been completed; Plaintiff's deposition was completed 11/18/2025; Expert discovery is underway.
Trial is set for 2/6/2026.
According to Proof
24CV06973 DELBERT RAY JR. GRISSOM, an individual, vs. CITY OF SANTA ROSA; COUNTY OF SONOMA; STATE OF
CALIFORNIA; BI-LINGUAL BROADCASTING
FOUNDATION, INC.; and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive
Dismissal Pending Personal Injury/Dangerous Condition Claimant alleges they sustained injuries to their right thumb when it was caught on door at Samuel Jones Hall.
Complaint served on City on 2/18/2025; City's Answer and Cross- Complaint filed on 3/26/2025, naming Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Santa Rosa as cross-defendant; Plaintiff has amended the Complaint to plead against Catholic Charities, and has dismissed County of Sonoma and Bi-Lingual Broadcasting, Inc., without prejudice. City has filed a dismissal of its cross-complaint as to Bi- Lingual Broadcasting, without prejudice and as to Catholic Charities Causes Nos. 2-5, without prejudice; City tendered its defense and indemnity to Catholic Charities on 4/2/2025; tender accepted on 4/18/2025 and substitutions of counsel filed on 5/07/2025; matter was resolved on 10/17/2025; release has been executed and dismissal is pending; unconditional notice of settlement filed by Plaintiff on 10/29/2025.
According to Proof
24CV07836 Erika Martinez Gomez v. CITY OF SANTA ROSA, a Government Entity; MICHAEL EVAN STASSE, an
individual; TAYLOR CHRISTIAN HOMER, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive
Active - Set for Trial Personal Injury/Dangerous Condition Claimant alleges dangerous conditions of public property contributed to vehicle accident causing injuries
Summons and Complaint served on 4/22/2025; City filed its Answer on 5/21/2025; City filed a Cross Complaint against property owner and defendant driver on 6/09/2025; Discovery ongoing; Case Management Conference held on 12/11/2025; Trial set for 10/09/2026.
According to Proof
Case Number Full Case Name Status Category Case Description Case Notes Amount Claimed Dismissed Date Settled Date Settlement Details LITIGATION AS OF JANUARY 8, 2025
25CV04135 MICHAEL KOSZALKA V. MICHAEL'S REFLEXOLOGY
CENTER; MICHAEL AND WAY INC.; CITY OF
SANTA ROSA; WCM VENTURES LLC ET AL.; AND
DOES 1 to 30
Active - Discovery Personal Injury/Dangerous Condition Claimant alleges he tripped and fell on a raised sidewalk. City was served with Summons and Complaint on 7/3/2025; City's Answer and Cross-Complaint filed on 8/4/2025; initial party written discovery has commenced and Plaintiff's deposition is scheduled for 12/09/2025; Initial Case Management Conference is scheduled for 1/23/2026.
According to Proof
25CV06654; 4:25CV10741-KAW DOUGLAS SHANNON, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF SANTA
ROSA, COUNTY OF
SONOMA; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; and DOES 1 TO 10
Dismissed Personal Injury/Dangerous Condition Claimant alleges he was compelled to attempt to descend a staircase without legally required accessible directional signs, a clearly marked accessible route and path of travel, including handrails and contrast stripping, signs, with his cane, which caused him to fall.
City served with Complaint on 11/19/2025; Defendant County of Sonoma filed a Notice of Removal to Federal Court for the Northern District on 12/17/2025; City filed a joinder to removal on 12/18/2026; Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint in Federal Court on 01/05/2026; City's responsive pleading due 01/20/2026. City was voluntarily dismissed on 01/16/2026.
According to Proof 1/16/2026
SCV-270898 Cindy Gemignani, as conservator of the Estate of Daryl W. Titus v. City of Santa Rosa, Jose Andrade
and DOES 1-20 inclusive
Active - Set for Trial Personal Injury/Dangerous Condition Claimant alleges they suffered injuries when struck by a vehicle after an off duty SRPD officer instructed them to cross street Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint, which was granted; Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint; City Defendants filed a Demurrer to Second Amended Complaint; Demurrer to be heard on 2/25/2026; discovery continues with meet and confer discussions ongoing; Trial continued to 09/04/2026 by stipulation; expert discovery to commence.
According to Proof
SCV-272709 Steven Hodges v. City of Santa Rosa, County of Sonoma, Lucinda R. Heifner, and Does 1 to 25
Dismissed Personal Injury/Dangerous Condition Plaintiff alleges they suffered injuries when they tripped and fell due to dangerous condition of sidewalk
Complaint served on defendant City of Santa Rosa on 9/28/2023; The Court filed an Order and Notice of Entry of Dismissal on 9/26/2023 dismissing the entire action without prejudice for failure to prosecute; Dismissal was vacated on 11/02/2023; City filed Answer on 4/18/2024; City's Cross-complaint against Heifner and Answer to Cross-Complaint filed on 9/12/2024; counsel for Plaintiff filed a motion to withdraw as counsel; the Court granted counsel's motion to withdraw on 4/17/2025; Plaintiff's deposition was completed on 7/29/2025; Depositions of cross-defendant and City's Persons Most Qualified were completed on 9/23/2025; Discovery is ongoing; Trial call held on 10/31/2025; further Trial call and an Order to Show Cause set for 11/07/2025. Trial continued to 12/02/2025; after commencement of trial, the entire action was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on 12/3/2025.
According to Proof 12/3/2025
POLICE ACTION
25CV05854 Justin Amburn v. CITY OF SANTA ROSA; SANTA ROSA POLICE DEPARTMENT; COUNTY OF SONOMA;
SONOMA COUNTY REGIONAL PARKS DEPARTMENT;
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF PARKS AND RECREATION; KAISER FOUNDATION
HOSPITALS, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100
Active - Pleadings Police Action Plaintiff alleges, among other things, civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against City of Santa Rosa, Santa Rosa Police Department, County of Sonoma, and the State of California, among others entities.
City of Santa Rosa was served with the Summons and Complaint on 10/28/2025; City, as well as State, County Defendants, and Kaiser Foundation filed motions to dismiss which are all set for hearing on 2/26/2026; Joint Case Management Conference is set for 3/20/26.
Case Number Full Case Name Status Category Case Description Case Notes Amount Claimed Dismissed Date Settled Date Settlement Details LITIGATION AS OF JANUARY 8, 2025
3:23-cv-02478-JSC John Paul Johnson v. City of Santa Rosa, Officers Cody Sousa, O'Neill, Deleon, Jones and Does 1-50
Active - Set for Trial Police Action Plaintiff alleges damages related to excessive force, battery, Bane Act Violation and Negligence.
Complaint served on the City 9/1/2023; Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint; City and those individual officers served answered; Court- ordered settlement conference was unsuccessful; City's Motion for Summary Judgment was heard on 11/14/2024 and was granted in part and denied in part; Trial was completed on 1/9/2026 resulting in the following jury verdict:
1) The jury found in favor of Officer Sousa on the lone Fourth Amendment claim asserted against him;
2) The jury found in favor of Officer O’Neill on the Fourth Amendment claim that it was excessive force to keep plaintiff in handcuffs while waiting for medical aid to arrive to address his elbow injury; 3) The jury found against Officer O’Neill on the other Fourth Amendment claim and state negligence and battery claims, finding that Officer O’Neill’s use of a control lock that resulted in plaintiff’s fractured elbow was excessive force. The jury found, however, that Officer O’Neill’s actions were not intentional, and thus found in favor of Officer O’Neill on the related Bane Act claim; and
4) Based on the findings against Officer O’Neill, the jury awarded plaintiff $10,000 in compensatory damages and $0 in punitive damages.
Judgment was entered on 1/14/2026; The City's Rule 50(b) Motion on qualified immunity for Officer O'Neill must be filed by 2/6/2026.
According to Proof
C 22-05196 James Earl Lindsey v. Santa Rosa Police Officer Jason Jucutan
Stayed Police Action Violation of civil rights; false arrest Officer Jucutan's Answer to complaint filed on 11/10/2022; Motion for More Definitive Statement filed by Officer Jucutan on 12/15/2022; case has been stayed pending resolution of the plaintiff's criminal case.
Court ordered parties to file status report every 6 months and to notify court within 30 days of resolution of criminal charges; That criminal trial appears to have resulted in a mistrial, declared on 2/13/2025; City has updated Federal Court of outcome of the criminal proceedings, timely and pursuant to operative Court order via Status update filed on 3/13/2025; Court set an Order to Show Cause, directed to Plaintiff, re dismissal for 3/25/2025, which was removed from calendar following Plaintiff's response on 4/9/2025; City understands that Plaintiff has been returned to custody and that his criminal proceedings will continue; City's Motion to dismiss was filed on 10/30/2025 but was vacated on Court's Order granting Plaintiff leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which must be filed by not later than 2/2/2026.
Unknown
Case Number Full Case Name Status Category Case Description Case Notes Amount Claimed Dismissed Date Settled Date Settlement Details LITIGATION AS OF JANUARY 8, 2025
WRIT OF MANDATE
25CV06089 CORNERSTONE COMMUNITIES II, LLC, a California limited liability company, v. THE CITY OF SANTA
ROSA, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
ROSA, and DOES 1 through 1-10, inclusive
Active - Pleadings Writ of Mandate Plaintiff Cornerstone Communities II, LLC filed a Writ of Mandate and/or Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief requesting the Court set aside Council's actions taken on 07/08/2025 in exercising the City's Call Notice Rights pursuant to the Purchase and Sale for Future Infill Development Agreement for 410 B Street.
On 9/17/2025, City was served with Plaintiff's summons and Writ of Mandate and/or Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; City filed a demurrer and Cross-Complaint on 11/24/2025; Initial Case Management Conference set for 1/29/2026; Hearing on City's demurrer set for 03/20/2026.
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
25CV06241 MICHAEL T. LUCAS doing business as MTL
PROPERTIES, LLC v. CITY OF SANTA ROSA,
Settlement Pending Writ of Mandate Petitioner filed a preemptory writ of administrative mandate under CCP section 1094.5 to compel City to set aside an administrative decision relating to citations for property located at 3230 Sebastopol Road.
Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus served on the City on 09/23/2025. Amended Petition served on 10/08/2025. Notice of Conditional Settlement Filed on 12/31/2025; Hearing on Motion for Preemptory Writ set for 01/14/2026 vacated; Case Management Conference set for 02/24/2026.
SCV-268752 Western Manufactured Housing Communities
Association and Rincon Valley dba Rincon Valley
Mobilehome Park v. City of Santa Rosa; Department
of Housing and Community of the City of Santa Rosa;
Megan Basinger, in her official capacity as Interim
Director of the Department of Community Services
of the City of Santa Rosa; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive
Appeal Writ of Mandate Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief; Petition for Writ of Traditional Mandamus; regarding mobile home park rent control ordinance - application of State price gouging limitations The City's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the sole remaining cause of action in the case was granted on 5/22/2024; Judgment entered on 11/25/2024; Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on 12/2/2024; Record on Appeal was filed 3/7/2025; Petitioner's Opening Brief was filed on 7/3/2025; City's responsive brief was filed on 10/20/2025; Petitioner's Reply Brief is due 1/20/2026.
According to Proof
SCV-272714 (Appeal A170967) Airport Business Center, a California limited partnership v. City of Santa Rosa; City Council of the
City of Santa Rosa; and DOES 1 through 25
Judgment Writ of Mandate Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief relating to designation of a parking garage (Garage 5) as surplus property under Surplus Land Act.
Complaint served on defendant City of Santa Rosa and Santa Rosa City Council on 3/2/2023; Petitioner's Request for a Writ of Mandate and petitioner's motion for stay was denied on 5/31/2024; Plaintiff served a Notice of Appeal on 7/16/2024; Petitioner's Writ of Supersedeas and request for stay was denied by the Court of Appeal on 7/31/2024; Appellant's Opening Brief was filed on 3/19/2025; City filed a responsive brief on 8/29/25; Appellant filed its Reply Brief on 8/4/2025; Oral Argument was heard on 11/19/2025; In a published opinion, Court of Appeal issued its decision on 11/26/2025, affirming the trial court's judgment in the City's favor and awarding costs to the City. The Court of Appeal decision became final on 12/26/ 2026.
According to Proof