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.

Joan Melendez Armontrout vs City of Santa Barbara

Case Number

23CV01882

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 07/19/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion Trial Preference

Tentative Ruling

The motion to preferentially set the trial date is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff shall give notice of this ruling to all parties and file proof of service of same.

Background:

This action commenced on May 2, 2023, by the filing of the original judicial council form complaint by plaintiff Joan Melendez Armontrout (“plaintiff”) against defendant City of Santa Barbara (“City”) for personal injury. On May 26, 2023, plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”).

As alleged in the FAC: On November 6, 2022, plaintiff was injured when she tripped on uneven pavement on a sidewalk near 422 Garden Street, Santa Barbara. City was negligent by “improperly constructing, flooring, maintaining, inspecting, cleaning, etc., the subject floor.” (FAC, ¶ L-1.)

On July 26, 2023, City filed its answer to the FAC asserting a general denial and 15 affirmative defenses.

Plaintiff now moves for trial preference, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 36, based on plaintiff’s age of 82 years.

Plaintiff filed her motion on May 2, 2024. Thereafter, on May 13, 2024, plaintiff amended her complaint to name defendant Kenneth D. Felts, individually and as trustee of the Kenneth D. Felts Revocable Trust (“Felts”) in place of Doe 1. Felts was served with the summons, complaint, current motion documents, and other documents, via personal service, on June 12, 2024.

There has been no opposition or other document filed in response to the motion. Felts has not yet filed an answer or otherwise appeared in the action.

Analysis:

            Preference

“A party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age may petition the court for a preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following findings:

“(1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole.

“(2) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party’s interest in the litigation.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (a).)

“A party may file and serve a motion for preference supported by a declaration of the moving party that all essential parties have been served with process or have appeared.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 36, subd. (c)(1).)

Included with her motion, plaintiff has submitted a declaration of her counsel which states: “All of the named defendants in this action have been served with process.” (Emrani Dec., ¶ 9.) While the statement was true at the time it was executed, plaintiff substituted Felts into the case in place of Doe 1 after the declaration was executed and the motion was filed. This shows that not all essential parties had been served with process, or appeared, at the time the motion was filed.

The case is not yet at issue as to Felts. Because Felts was not served prior to the present motion being filed, or having made any appearance in this action, it would be fundamentally unjust to grant the motion for preference without Felts having been given the opportunity to appear and file responsive documents to both the complaint and the present motion.

The motion for preference will be denied without prejudice.

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?