Filed 7/24/14 Robbins v. Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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 

BROOKE TEAL ROBBINS, 

 Plaintiff and Appellant, 

v. 

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY 

SHERIFF'S OFFICE et al., 

 Defendants and Respondents. 

2d Civil No. B252797 

(Super. Ct. No. 1417585) 

(Santa Barbara County) 

 Plaintiff brings a taxpayer's suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against 

the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office and Sheriff Bill Brown. Plaintiff alleges that 

prior to serving a writ of possession, the Sheriff has a duty to investigate to determine 

whether the court properly issued the writ. The trial court sustained the Sheriff's 

demurrer without leave to amend. We affirm the ensuing judgment. 

FACTS 

 Brooke Teal Robbins alleges as follows: 

 Robbins is a resident and taxpayer of Santa Barbara County. Since 2009, 

she has continuously resided at 25 Conejo Road in Santa Barbara as a tenant of her 

parents. Her parents were the victims of fraud, elder abuse, predatory lending and 

wrongful foreclosure. The purchaser at the foreclosure sale successfully prosecuted an 
2 

unlawful detainer action against her parents. Her parents have vacated the premises. 

Robbins was never served with a notice of trustee's sale; was not properly served with a 

60-day notice prior to eviction; and was not named in the unlawful detainer action or writ 

of possession. 

 Robbins alleges, on information and belief, that the Santa Barbara County 

Sheriff's Office through Sheriff Bill Brown, will "effectuate the writ of possession and 

writ of eviction regardless of the writ being improper" and of the "rights and remedies" of 

Robbins; the Sheriff and his office have "a policy and a custom of carrying out all court 

ordered Writs of Possessions and evictions without further investigation while using 

taxpayer funds"; and the Sheriff and his office "routine[ly] presume that all occupants 

have been properly served [prior] to judgment and therefore" do not consider Robbins's 

right to be "properly Noticed of Trustee's Sale and proper 60-day Notice" prior to 

eviction. 

DISCUSSION 

I. 

 The function of a demurrer is to test whether, as a matter of law, the facts 

alleged in the complaint state a cause of action under any legal theory. (Intengan v. BAC 

Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1052.) We assume the truth of 

all facts properly pleaded, as well as facts of which the trial court properly took judicial 

notice. (Ibid.) But we do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions 

of law. (Ibid.) Our review of the trial court's decision is de novo. (Ibid.) 

 We review the trial court's decision to allow an amendment to the 

complaint for an abuse of discretion. (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 

Cal.App.4th 256, 273.) Where there is no reasonable possibility that plaintiff can cure 

the defect with an amendment, sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend is not an 

abuse of discretion. (Id. at p. 274.) 

II. 

 Robbins seeks an injunction for a writ of possession that does not exist. 

That such a writ may issue sometime in the future if the unnamed owner of the property 
3 

succeeds in an unlawful detainer action cannot support Robbins's cause of action. 

Nothing has happened yet. Lawsuits are based on facts, not speculation about facts that 

may or may not occur in the future. We cannot render an advisory opinion or adjudicate 

cases not before us. (Nordstrom Com. Cases (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 576, 591.) 

 In any event, procedural issues aside, there is no merit to the substance of 

Robbins's complaint. It appears that Robbins's complaint alleges that prior to serving a 

writ of possession, the Sheriff must conduct an investigation to determine whether the 

trial court properly issued the writ. The law is quite clear. The Sheriff has no duty to 

investigate, but is required to serve a writ of possession issued by the court. (See Code 

Civ. Proc., § 715.020, subd. (a) ["The levying officer shall serve a copy of the writ of 

possession on one occupant of the property"].) 

 The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to respondents. 

 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. 

 GILBERT, P. J. 

We concur: 

 YEGAN, J. 

 PERREN, J. 
Donna D. Geck, Judge 

Superior Court County of Santa Barbara 

______________________________ 

 Brooke Teal Robbins, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. 

 Office of the County Counsel County of Santa Barbara, Michael C. 

Ghizzoni, County Counsel, and Lisa A. Rothstein, Senior Deputy, for Defendants and 

Respondents.