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.

Mark Jon Rogers v Monsanto Company

Case Number

23CV00945

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 08/28/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

1) OSC re Dismissal; and, 2) Motion to Seal

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Bui Simon: Patricia L. Glaser, Cynthia E. Organ, Alexander R. Miller, Glaser Weil Fink Howard Jordan & Shapiro LLP

                                   

For Defendants Angela Scott, Scott Milden, and Milden, LLC: Bert H. Deixler, Patrick J. Somers, David T. Freenock, Kendall Brill & Kelly LLP                  

RULING:

(1) For the reasons set forth herein, the motion of defendant Scott Milden to disqualify counsel for plaintiff Bui Simon is denied.

(2) The motion of defendant Milden for a protective order is denied. All requests for awards of monetary sanctions are denied.

(3) The deposition of defendant Milden ordered in related case No. 23CV02376 is to apply to both this case and case No. 23CV02376 and to encompass all matters in both cases.

Analysis

The two motions now before the court are (1) the motion of defendant Scott Milden to disqualify counsel for plaintiff Bui Simon, and (2) the motion of defendant Scott Milden for a protective order regarding his deposition. The same motions have been made, and are being concurrently heard with the motions in this case, in the related case of Simon, etc., v. Scott, et al., case No. 23CV02376. The facts, arguments, and analysis applicable to the motions in case No. 23CV02376 and the motions in this case are the same. The court incorporates by this reference its ruling in case No. 23CV02376 and reaches the same results in this case with one qualification.

The qualification is that in case No. 23CV02376, plaintiff Simon also made a motion to compel the deposition of Milden but has not made such a motion in this case. As the court noted in ruling in case No. 23CV02376, “[i]f the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may order that the deponent provide or permit the discovery against which protection was sought on those terms and conditions that are just.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2025.420, subd. (g).) Because of the overlap in the subject matter between these two related cases, there should only be one deposition of defendant Milden in both cases. To avoid any confusion, the court will order that the deposition ordered in case No. 23CV02376 will be deemed to be taken in both cases and the orders in case No. 23CV02376 regarding that deposition apply in this case as well.

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?