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.

Matter of Taylor Elizabeth Prendergast

Case Number

25PR00129

Case Type

Minor/Disabled Person's Compromise

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 04/16/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Minor’s Compromise

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Appearances required.

The following deficiencies with the petition must be rectified by amended petition filed before the hearing:

1) Adequate documentation that the minor has fully recovered, or is expected to fully recover from the injuries.  There are no attachments supporting the allegation at paragraph 9 of the petition.  Attachments to the amended petition must support a finding that the minor will fully recover.  Please note: It is insufficient to attach the initial medical records. The Court needs confirmation of a full recovery, thus current, recent records showing minor suffers no symptoms from the original injury are required, or records clearly indicating a prognosis for the Court to consider.

2) Adequate evidence of sufficient investigation into the solvency of the settling defendant above the policy limits of the settling insurance company must be submitted.  There are no facts alleged that defendant cannot meet a judgment past the policy limits, and evidence on file shows the injury may be more severe than the amount of the settlement will compensate for.

3) Clear allegations and correct calculations at paragraphs 11 through 18.  The allegations in paragraphs 11 and 12 (settlement amounts) do not coincide with calculations in paragraphs 13-18.  It is unclear from the current allegations what the correct settlement amount is, who is getting paid what amount out of the settlement amount, and why.  Specifically, it appears the entire settlement amount is $35,725.86 from two different defendants, but the math in paragraphs 13-18 does not coincide with that settlement amount. Further, the summary in paragraph 17 claims only a $16,000 settlement amount, which is confusing.

4) Medical payments are extreme, thus do not appear to have taken into account mandatory reductions based on Ahlborn calculations.  Medi-Cal Liens must be apportioned to a percentage consistent with the percentage of recovery.  According to SCOTUS, DHCS violates federal law when it places a statutory lien on any amount of a settlement or judgment above an amount specifically designated as reimbursement for medical costs.  (Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Services v. Ahlborn (2006) 547 U.S. 268, 272.)  Thus, according to California cases decided after Ahlborn, DHCS cannot seek full reimbursement for Medi-Cal payments made for medical care required to treat injuries caused by a third-party tortfeasor, unless the recipient of the medical care recovers the full value of their tort claim. (See e.g. Lopez v. Daimler Chrysler Corp. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1373, 1378; Lima v. Vouis (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 242, 260; Bolanos v. Superior Court (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 744, 748.) Thus in a settlement, DHCS’s recovery is limited to a percentage of the portion of the settlement apportioned for reimbursement of payments made for medical care, equivalent to the percent the settlement is to the value of the full claim amount:

 

Expressed mathematically, the Ahlborn formula calculates the reimbursement due as the total settlement divided by the full value of the claim, which is then multiplied by the value of benefits provided. (Reimbursement Due = [Total Settlement ÷ Full Value of Claim] × Value of Benefits Provided.)

 

(Aguilera v. Loma Linda University Medical Center (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 821, 828.)

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?