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.

John Doe vs Santa Barbara Unified School District et al

Case Number

21CV01542

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 04/10/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Consolidation

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff John Doe by John Taylor, Natalie Weatherford, Sonya Ostovar; Afnan Shukry; Holly J Boyer.

Defendant Santa Barbara Unified School District by Harry Harrison, Jessica J Slusser.

Issue

Motion for Consolidation

RULING

The motion is DENIED. Which of the two Plaintiffs will you try on 4/24/24?

Analysis

The Court has read the Motion, the Opposition, and the Reply. There is merit to what the Plaintiff requests and the Court clearly understands Plaintiff’s argument that these cases present the same factual and legal issues. That to consolidate them would save significant judicial resources, the time of the potential jurors, the time of the impaneled jurors, the time of the lawyers and their staff. That is a fair argument.

On the other hand, these cases present multiple allegations of abuse and stalking arising from different facts, which occurred at different times, locations, and involved different witnesses. Evidence associated with causation and damages contentions is different.

There is a significant danger of prejudice even if only considering the issue of damages given the different evidence associated with Sell’s alleged interactions with the respective Plaintiffs.

There is the real danger that if there are two claims of abuse it will impact a juror’s thinking that it must be true.

On balance, the Request to Consolidate should be denied. Do not mention to the potential jurors or the impaneled jury that there is yet another Plaintiff or that an earlier case involving another Plaintiff was tried.

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?