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.

Guardianship of Isadora Szele-Alston

Case Number

24PR00003

Case Type

Guardianship - Person

Hearing Date / Time

Thu, 11/07/2024 - 09:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion: Compel Further Discovery Set One

Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

For the reasons set forth herein:

1. The hearing on petitioners’ motion to compel further responses to requests for production of documents, set one, is continued to November 21, 2024.

2. Petitioner’s reply to objector’s opposition, if any, is due no later than November 14, 2024.

3. The parties shall continue to meet and confer, regarding the issues raised by the motion, as set forth below, and advise the court if those efforts narrow the issues or dispose of them entirely.

Background:

This action was commenced on January 3, 2024, by the filing of the petition for appointment of temporary guardian of the person of minor Isadora Szele-Alston (“Isadora”), by her aunt and uncle Tonya Szele (“Tonya”) and Michael Szele (“Michael”). (Note: due to common surnames, and for clarity, the parties will be referred to by their given names. No disrespect is intended.)

On March 7, 2024, Isadora’s mother Christina Szele (“Christina”) filed an objection to the petition for appointment of guardian.

On March 28, 2024, the court appointed minor’s counsel and ordered that the parties share the cost of minor’s counsel’s fees equally, subject to reallocation.

On April 18, 2024, Tonya and Michael served a demand for production of documents, set one, on Christina. (Kaur Decl., ¶ 4 & Exh. A.) Christina responded to the demand for production on May 17, 2024, with objections. (Kaur Decl., ¶

Deeming the responses inadequate, Tonya and Michael’s counsel sent correspondence to Christina’s counsel. The parties engaged in the meet and confer process but were unsuccessful in resolving their dispute.

On July 3, 2024, Tonya and Michael filed the present motion to compel further responses to the requests for production of documents.

On September 19, 2024, Christina s prior attorney was relieved as counsel. On October 17, 2024, Christiana’s current counsel substituted into the case.

Christina filed her opposition to the present motion on November 1, 2024.

Analysis:

“All papers opposing a motion . . . shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days . . . before the hearing.”

Christina’s opposition, being filed on November 1, 2024, was filed only four court days before the hearing.

While the court could simply refuse to consider the late-filed opposition, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300(d), the opposition makes valid arguments regarding certain requests. As such, the court will continue the hearing on this motion to allow Tonya and Michael to file a substantive reply to the opposition.

In the meantime, the parties will be ordered to continue to meet and confer in an effort to resolve the issues raised, including the period of production and taxpayer privileges. Should the parties narrow the issues, or resolve the dispute completely, they are to notify the court as early as possible.

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?