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.

Judith Rehfeld v City of Santa Barbara

Case Number

23CV02551

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 09/11/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion by defendant City of Santa Barbara for terminating sanctions.

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff’s status is unclear, after her attorney’s motion to withdraw was granted after hearing on June 26, 2024, a signed order has never been served on her because the wrong order was signed, and even the amended order that was submitted had significant errors and did not reflect the ruling of the Court.                                    

Sara J. Knecht / Tom R. Shapiro / Delaney R. Satz of City Attorney’s Office for defendant City of Santa Barbara

                                   

Daniel R Friedenthal / Jay D. Brown of Friedenthal, Heffernan & Brown, LLP for defendant Sanctuary Centers of Santa Barbara, Inc.

                       

RULING

For reasons that are further articulated below:

1.         Because this Court inadvertently executed an order which did not comply with the terms of its Minute Order, the Court will vacate the Order on Request to be Relieved as Counsel, which was filed on June 27, 2024. Since no executed order was ever served upon plaintiff Rehfeld, it appears that attorney Sean J. Bauman of Bauman Law APLC effectively remains her counsel of record in this matter.

2.         In order to permit plaintiff an opportunity to obtain replacement counsel to represent her in this action, the Court will further continue the hearing on the motion for terminating sanctions to December 18, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. in Department 3 of this Court.

3.         The Court will direct attorney Bauman to submit to the Court a further amended proposed Order Granting Attorney’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, which checks Box 5.a., and which at No. 8 verbatim includes the following:

The Court has continued the hearing on the City’s motion to impose terminating sanctions against plaintiff, and dismiss her case, to December 18, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., in Dept. 3 of the Santa Barbara Superior Court. It has done so for the express purpose of permitting Plaintiff, Judith Rehfeld, to obtain replacement counsel to represent her with respect to that hearing, specifically, and in this action, generally. Any opposition to the motion must be filed no later than December 5, 2024.

4.         If the motion for terminating sanctions is not granted on December 18, 2024, the Court will restore the case to the civil active list and set further appropriate trial and calendar management hearing dates.

5.         The Court will direct counsel for the City to give notice of its orders to all parties, including both to Ms. Rehfeld individually, and to her counsel, Mr. Bauman.

Background

On May 8, 2024, plaintiff’s counsel moved to be relieved as counsel of record, setting the hearing on the motion for June 26, 2024. The motion was based upon the declaration of counsel, who stated that there had been a significant breakdown in communication, rendering it impossible for counsel to continue the representation. That motion was opposed—not by plaintiff, but by defendant City of Santa Barbara.

On June 5, 2024, defendant City of Santa Barbara filed the current motion for terminating sanctions, setting the hearing on the motion for July 3, 2024, one week after the motion by plaintiff’s counsel to be relieved as her attorney of record was set for hearing. Defendant Sanctuary Centers of Santa Barbara, Inc. filed a joinder in the motion for terminating sanctions.

At the June 26, 2024, hearing on counsel’s motion to be relieved, the Court granted the motion and, in order to protect plaintiff’s due process rights and provide her with an opportunity to obtain replacement counsel to represent her, the Court continued the hearing on the motion for terminating sanctions to September 11. In order that plaintiff would be made well aware of these events, the Court directed plaintiff’s counsel to submit a new proposed order on his motion to be relieved, in which Box 5.a. is checked (related to the time when the order relieving counsel would be effective), and at No. 8 to specify the new hearing date on the motion for terminating sanctions, and to note that the Court has continued the hearing for the express purpose of permitting Plaintiff, Judith Rehfeld, to obtain replacement counsel to represent her with respect to that hearing, specifically, and in this action, generally. Also as part of its ruling, the Court vacated the then-pending MSC (8/2/24) and Trial (9/11/24) dates.

Counsel submitted a new proposed order which complied with the Court’s directive as to Box 5.a.. With respect to No. 8, it included only the original hearing date—and not the continued hearing date—on the motion for terminating sanctions, and did not include the notation which the Court’s minute order on the matter required.

To complicate this matter further, this Court inadvertently executed the original proposed order submitted when the motion was filed, rather than the amended proposed order that it had directed plaintiff’s counsel to submit. There is also no proof of service that the signed order, or any order containing the continued hearing date on this motion, was ever served on anyone, including plaintiff. As a result, it appears that plaintiff’s counsel is still officially her counsel of record in this case.

Consequently, it appears that there is little to no possibility that plaintiff has ever been advised of (1) the grant of her counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel of record on her behalf in this case, (2) the continued hearing date on the motion for terminating sanctions, (3) that the hearing was continued for the express purpose of providing her with an opportunity to find replacement counsel to represent her in this action and on this motion, or (4) that she needed to file and serve any response or opposition to the motion pursuant to the standards set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b), i.e., no later than 9 court days before the hearing.

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?