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.

Nicole Denise Griggs vs Cottage Health et al

Case Number

21CV04146

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 10/27/2023 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Vacate Vexatious Litigant Status/Change Venue/Return Bond/CMC

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set for the below, plaintiff’s motion to vacate vexatious litigant status, return bond deposit, and change venue is denied.

Background:

Griggs filed the current action on October 18, 2021. She filed her first amended complaint (FAC) on February 17, 2022, in propria persona, against nine defendants, including Cottage Health Inc. (Cottage). Griggs’ FAC sets forth a cause of action for professional negligence (medical malpractice).

Griggs claims that on July 9, 2019, among other things, that she suffered an internal cystic rupture and received negligent care at Saint Ynez Cottage Hospital. (FAC, p. 4, ll. 12-22.) Griggs states that she then went to Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital and again received negligent medical care. (FAC, p. 5, ll. 9-18.) Griggs then claims that she went to Goleta Cottage Hospital and received negligent medical care and was assaulted by a security guard. (FAC, p. 8, ll. 11-23.)

On September 26, 2022, Cottage filed a motion for an order to declare plaintiff a vexatious litigant. Griggs did not file an opposition. The hearing was scheduled to take place on January 13, 2023. Plaintiff appeared, presented argument, and requested a continuance. The matter was continued to January 27, 2023. By way of stipulation, the hearing was continued a second time to February 10, 2023. At the February 10, 2023, hearing, Griggs appeared remotely, and defense counsel appeared in person.

As a result of the February 10, 2023, hearing, Griggs was declared a vexatious litigant subject to all the pre-filing requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 391.7 and ordered to post security in the amount of $1,000.00, for the benefit of Cottage, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 391.4. Griggs posted security in February 2023.

Griggs filed the present motion to vacate vexatious litigant status, return security bond deposit, and change venue.

Cottage opposes the motion.

Analysis:

            Procedural Issues

As an initial matter, Griggs’ motion is 71 pages long.

“Except in a summary judgment or summary adjudication motion, no opening or responding memorandum may exceed 15 pages.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d).) “A party may apply to the court ex parte but with written notice of the application to the other parties, at least 24 hours before the memorandum is due, for permission to file a longer memorandum. The application must state reasons why the argument cannot be made within the stated limit.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(e). Griggs has not applied for permission to file a longer memorandum. “A memorandum that exceeds 10 pages must include a table of contents and a table of authorities. A memorandum that exceeds 15 pages must also include an opening summary of argument.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(f).) Plaintiff’s memorandum does not include a table of contents, a table of authorities, or an opening summary of argument.

“A memorandum that exceeds the page limits of these rules must be filed and considered in the same manner as a late-filed paper.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(g).) “No paper may be rejected for filing on the ground that it was untimely submitted for filing. If the court, in its discretion, refuses to consider a late filed paper, the minutes or order must so indicate.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d).)

“Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation. [Citation.] . . . A doctrine generally requiring or permitting exceptional treatment of parties who represent themselves would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.)

As such, the court may refuse to consider the motion, and deny it, for failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(d). The court will do so, and the motion will be denied on that basis.

In the alternative, the court has reviewed Griggs motion and will deny it on the grounds set forth below.

            Vexatious Litigant Designation

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 391.8, subdivision (a), “[a] vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under Section 391.7 may file an application to vacate the prefiling order and remove his or her name from the Judicial Council’s list of vexatious litigants subject to prefiling orders.”

“A court may vacate a prefiling order and order removal of a vexatious litigant’s name from the Judicial Council’s list of vexatious litigants subject to prefiling orders upon a showing of a material change in the facts upon which the order was granted and that the ends of justice would be served by vacating the order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 391.8, subd. (c).)

In motion practice: “The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.113(b).)

The court has reviewed and considered Griggs’ memorandum. The memorandum is unsupported by any showing of a material change in facts upon which the order was originally granted and contains no relevant legal authority. Griggs has not met her burden and her request must be denied and the security bond will not be refunded at this time.

To the extent that Griggs argues that classifying her a vexatious litigant violates her constitutional rights: “Vexatious litigant statutes are constitutional and do not deprive a litigant of due process of law.” (Bravo v. Ismaj (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 211, 222.)

To the extent that Griggs’ motion is intended to be taken as a motion for reconsideration of the February 10, 2023 order declaring her a vexatious litigant, it also fails. “When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).)

Notice of entry of the order was served on February 15, 2023, making the current motion well beyond the 10-day deadline. Also, Griggs does not provide an affidavit as required or set forth any “new or different facts, circumstances, or law.”

            Change of Venue

The caption of Griggs’ motion also includes a request for change of venue. In the body of the memorandum, Griggs argues that California is an inappropriate venue for her case based on the complaints she has made against Californians. (Motion, p. 37, ll. 8-13.) Griggs also argues that defendants have a “home court advantage” in California. (Id. at p. 46, ll. 11-12.)

“Except as otherwise provided by law and subject to the power of the court to transfer actions or proceedings as provided in this title, the superior court in the county where the defendants or some of them reside at the commencement of the action is the proper court for the trial of the action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 395, subd. (a).) “It is well established that a defendant is entitled to have an action tried in the county of his or her residence unless the action falls within some exception to the general venue rule.” (Brown v. Superior Court (1984) 37 Cal.3d 477, 483.)

Santa Barbara County is the proper venue in this matter as acknowledged by Griggs when she filed her complaint and civil case cover sheet addendum, and no exception has been argued by Griggs. Griggs provides no cogent argument or legal authority for her request. Her assertions are merely unsupported conclusions. Further, Griggs fails to state what venue she believes would be proper. As such, her motion will be denied.

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?