Skip to main content
Skip to main content.

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.

Dana Alvarez et al vs Cedric Jackson

Case Number

22CV03637

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Mon, 04/08/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Compel (2)

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff served a Demand for Production (Set One) and Special Interrogatories (Set One) upon defendant on June 9, 2023. Defendant served responses to these requests on August 22, 2023, but such responses were unverified. On November 20, 2023, plaintiff filed the current motions to compel responses or, in the alternative, to compel further responses to the Demand for Production and to the Special Interrogatories. The motions were apparently drafted as alternative motions, in order to compel defendant to provide verifications for the responses or, if verifications were provided prior to the hearings, to compel defendant to provide further responses to the requests. The Court notes that it has not seen motions drafted in the alternative in this way, and does not condone the practice—if there were no verifications, there were effectively no responses, and motions to compel further responses were inappropriate and premature.

The hearings on these two motions have been continued several times by stipulation of the parties. The court’s file does not reflect that defendant has ever filed oppositions to either of the motions. The court is therefore uncertain whether the parties intend for the motions to go forward on their merits on April 8. Additionally, no party has had the courtesy of advising the Court whether verifications to the discovery were ever provided by defendant—a fact which dramatically changes the nature of the motions which were filed.

In the event that verifications have not been provided, the Court will order that they be provided no later than April 15, 2024. If verifications have been provided, and the parties intend that the motions to compel further responses go forward on their merits, the motions to compel further responses will be continued to May 6, 2024, for hearing.

Was this helpful?

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.