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.

Andre Farr v. The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C., et al.

Case Number

24CV00258

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 12/11/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Order To Show Cause

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Andre Farr: Self-Represented 

For Defendant The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC: Marc A. Trachtman, Mathew J. Vande Wydeven, Marc Trachtman Law, PC

                                   

RULING

For all reasons discussed herein, the order to show cause is ordered off-calendar.

Background

On January 17, 2024, Plaintiff Andre Farr (Farr) filed a Judicial Council of California form complaint against Defendants The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. (Ritz-Carlton), Marriott International, Inc. (Marriott), and The Ritz-Carlton Bacara, Santa Barbara (the Bacara) (collectively, Defendants), alleging one cause of action for premises liability. In the complaint, Farr alleges that on January 17, 2022, he slipped and fell backwards inside of a hotel suite owned, maintained, managed and operated by Defendants, as a result of a pipe bursting in the ceiling, which caused Farr to injure his knee, back, and ankle. (Compl., ¶ Prem.L-1.)

On April 17, 2024, Ritz-Carlton filed a motion for an order striking punitive damages alleged in the complaint which the Court granted, with leave to amend, pursuant to a Minute Order entered on May 29, 2024. The Court directed Farr to file and serve a first amended complaint, if any, no later than June 14, 2024.

The Court has no record of Farr having filed first amended complaint in this action. Therefore, the complaint is the operative pleading.

On July 26, 2024, the Ritz-Carlton answered the complaint generally denying its allegations and asserting twenty-eight affirmative defenses.

The Court’s records further reflect that on September 4, 2024, the Court entered a Minute Order setting an order to show cause for October 2, 2024 (the October OSC), regarding the dismissal of Marriott and the Bacara from the action.

Following the October OSC, on October 3 and 4, 2024, Ritz-Carlton separately filed what appear to be identical notices of the Court’s ruling at the October OSC, stating that the Court dismissed Marriott and the Bacara from the action, with prejudice, reminded the parties of future hearing dates and that Farr needed to be reminded of same, and ordered Ritz-Carlton to give notice of the Court’s ruling. (Oct. 3 & 4, 2024, Notices of Ruling.) The proofs of service attached to each notice filed by Ritz-Carlton on October 3 and 4, 2024, show that they were served on Farr by electronic service only, and reflect the following physical address for Farr: 4961 Star Mine Court, Antioch, CA 94531. (Ibid. [proofs of service].)

On October 11, 2024, the Court entered an order finding that Farr had not filed a proof of service showing that Marriott and the Bacara were served with a copy of the complaint filed by Farr in this action. (Oct. 11, 2024, Order.) In the October 11, 2024, order, the Court dismissed Marriott and the Bacara from this action, with prejudice. (Ibid.) The proof of service attached to the October 11, 2024, order also indicates that Farr was served with that order by electronic service only, and reflect the same physical address further described above. (Ibid.)

On November 20, 2024, the Court entered a Minute Order (the Minute Order), granting three motions to compel any discovery responses filed by Ritz-Carlton. In the Minute Order, the Court set an order to show cause on December 11, 2024 (the December OSC), to permit the Court to ascertain if Farr intends to pursue this litigation. (See Minute Order, ¶ 7.) The Court further ordered Ritz-Carlton to give notice of its ruling. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

The Court has no record demonstrating that Ritz-Carlton served notice of the Minute Order as ordered by the Court.

Analysis

The purpose and intent of the December OSC was to identify the status of this case. Though the Court directed Ritz-Carlton to give notice of the Minute Order and the December OSC to Farr, the Court’s records reflect or indicate that Ritz-Carlton failed to give Farr notice. There is also no information or evidence demonstrating that Farr was otherwise provided with any notice of the December OSC.

Moreover, the Court’s records reflect that Ritz-Carlton has ostensibly served Farr with notices and other documents filed in this action by electronic service. As a self-represented party, Farr must be served by non-electronic methods unless Farr has affirmatively consented to electronic service. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.251(3)(B).) Further, the Court has no record showing that Farr has consented to electronic service in this action. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1010.6, subd. (c).)

In addition, to the extent Ritz-Carlton has served Farr with any notice or documents by mail, the Court’s records indicate that the physical address which has ostensibly been used by Ritz-Carlton for service of any such notices or documents on Farr, as further described above, is not the address of record for Farr in this action as identified in the complaint. To the extent Farr wishes to change his address of record for service of notices and other documents in this action, Farr must provide appropriate notice by filing and serving a completed Judicial Council of California form MC-040 (Notice of Change Of Address).

For all reasons discussed above, and as there exists no authority under which the Court may dismiss the complaint at this stage of the proceedings, the Court will order the December OSC off-calendar. To the extent any party to this action wishes to seek similar or other appropriate relief, they may do so by filing and properly serving a procedurally appropriate motion.

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?