Skip to main content.

Fraud Alert: Scam Text Messages Claiming DMV Penalties -

We have been made aware of fraudulent text messages being sent to individuals claiming to be from the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) or the court system. These messages often state that the recipient owes penalties or fees related to traffic violations or DMV infractions and may include a link or phone number to resolve the matter. 

Take these steps to reduce the chances of falling victim to a text message scam:

  • Never respond to unsolicited or suspicious texts — If you receive a message asking for personal or financial information, do not reply.
  • Verify the source — If you are unsure, always contact the DMV through official channels.
  • Call the DMV if you have concerns — The DMV customer service team is available to help you at 800-777-0133.

Please see DMV warning about fraudulent texts: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/news-and-media/dmv-warns-of-fraudulent-te…

Jury Scam alert -

The Santa Barbara Superior Court has received complaints about individuals trying to scam members of the public by pretending to be court officers or officials. The Jury Services office of the Santa Barbara Superior Court does not call citizens to request payments for failing to appear for jury duty. California law does not permit citizens to pay a fine in lieu of jury duty. If you receive such a call simply hang up and, if the scammer persists, call your local law enforcement agency. Learn more about the recent scam warning.

Notice to Jurors:

Prospective jurors summoned for jury service can expect to receive their jury summons in postcard form. Please check your mail for a postcard with important instructions to fulfil your jury service. Visit the Jury Services page for more information.

Cavalry SPV I LLC v. Moreno

Case Number

15CV00685

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 05/29/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Moreno’s Claim of Exemption

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Judgment Creditor: Kimberlee Tssi; Rachel Haney; Eileen Ortega, Jerry Wang; Anna Karkocn

For Defendant Judgment Debtor Alondra Cupuchino FKA Alondra Moreno [“Moreno”]: self-represented.  

Issue

Moreno’s Claim of Exemption.

RULING

Moreno’s Claim for Exemption is Denied; the wage garnishment shall be modified to $100.00 every two weeks. There is a [proposed] order in the file that the Court intends to sign that will be modified consistent with this decision.

Analysis

             Judgment Debtor Claims

Filed on 4/26/24; [the original Claim was filed 4/18/24 and set for 5/29/24]; in the most recent Claim of Exemption Moreno claims she needs all her earnings to support herself and her family; she is not willing to have anything withheld from her earnings. She has 3 children ages 2-9; gross monthly income is $4,331.91 and net monthly income of $3,865.85.

                 Judgment Creditor Claims

The Court entered a Renewal of Judgment in favor of Cavalry SP I, LLC as assignee of GE Capital Retail Bank on April 6, 2016, in the amount of $5,602.10. To date, credits of $40.32 have been applied towards this judgment. Interest is accruing at 10% per year or $1.5238/day. The Judgment Debtor has filed a claim of exemption to Judgment Creditor’s wage garnishment. Judgment Debtor is offering to withhold only $0.00 monthly. Judgment Debtor submitted a financial statement in which they claim a total monthly income of $4,331.9l per month. Judgment Creditor has not received an employer’s return to support this claim. Judgment Debtor is not paying on this Judgment voluntarily. Judgement Creditor has been forced to enforce the Judgment against Judgment Debtor through an involuntary wage garnishment. Judgment Creditor can garnish the lesser of: 20% of disposable earnings, or 40% of the amount by which judgment debtor’s disposable earnings exceed the greater of 48 times the state or local minimum wage. General living and household expenses are not a valid exemption. Judgment Debtor has not listed any specific exemption that they are entitled to in the submitted claim of exemption. Judgment Creditor finds the offer of $0.00 withholding per pay period to be unacceptable. Given that Judgment Debtor lists no exemption to which they are entitled and makes well over

the poverty level, this Court should deny Judgment Debtor’s claim of exemption. If the Court is inclined to grant some relief, Judgment Creditor requests that the wage garnishment be modified to no less than $100.00 every two weeks.

The Court’s Conclusions

Moreno’s Claim should not be granted; the Judgment Creditor’s evidence is very persuasive; she has the wherewith all to pay $100 every two weeks as suggested by the Judgment Creditor.

Was this helpful?

Yes No
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Was this helpful?