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.

Zaca Preserve LLC vs Sable Offshore Corporation et al

Case Number

24CV05483

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 05/30/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Demurrers; Motion to Strike

Tentative Ruling

Unless a party appears at the hearing and shows good cause otherwise, this action is transferred to the Cook Division (Santa Maria). The demurrers and motion to strike will be rescheduled for hearing following transfer.

In the original complaint and the first amended complaint, plaintiff Zaca Preserve, LLC, (Zaca) alleges that it owns a 138-acre parcel of land “located to the north of Buellton, CA.” (FAC, ¶ 12; Complaint, ¶ 12.) Zaca’s first cause of action is to quiet title to a recorded easement that burdens this parcel. (FAC, ¶¶ 16, 102-113.)

The general rule for venue within Santa Barbara County is determined by Santa Barbara County Superior Court Local Rules (Local Rules), rule 203, subdivision (a):

“When, under California law, ‘North County’ would be a ‘proper county’ for venue purposes, all filings for such matters shall be in the appropriate division of the Clerk's office in North County. All other filings shall be made in the Clerk's office in the appropriate division of the Court in South County.”

A qualification to this general rule is the rule of venue for real property cases:

“Notwithstanding whether venue may be proper in a different geographic area (North County or South County) under subdivision (a) of this rule, any case which asserts a claim under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), under the Williamson Act (Gov. Code, § 51200 et seq.), or which asserts a claim based upon title, use, or regulation of specific real property shall be filed initially in the geographic area where the real property that is the subject of the dispute is situated. Cases subject to this subdivision may be venued in a different division only upon a showing of good cause made to the appropriate department of the Court in the geographic area where the real property is situated.” (Local Rules, rule 203, subd. (b).)

Plaintiff’s complaint asserts a claim based upon title and use of specific real property. The allegations of the location of the real property appears to place the real property in “North County.” (See Local Rules, rule 201 & appendix 1 [defining “North County”].) It therefore appears that this case should be transferred to North County.

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?