Skip to main content
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.

OPV Coalition et al vs Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency et al

Case Number

VENCI00555357

Case Type

Civil Law & Motion

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 01/17/2025 - 15:00

Nature of Proceedings

Case Management Conference

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiffs filed a case management conference statement for the January 17, 2025,  case management conference (CMC) on January 3, 2025. No other party has submitted a CMC statement or other response. Plaintiffs’ CMC statement reported on the hearings before Judge Beckloff and anticipated the filing of his initial report on January 10.

On January 10, 2025, Judge Beckloff’s initial report was filed as an attachment to a notice filed by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs request that the court affirm and adopt the recommendations contained in the report as the court’s order. No opposition or other response has been filed to this request. The report contains recommendations: (1) lifting the discovery stay as of January 17, 2025; (2) limiting discovery to Phase 1 issues, that is, the determination of the total and native safe yield(s) of the Oxnard Subbasin of the Santa Clara River Valley Groundwater Basin and the Pleasant Valley Basin; (3) procedures for discovery disputes; (4) an expedited procedure to address objections that discovery propounded exceeds the scope of Phase 1 issues; and (5) scheduling of Phase 1 litigation. These issues were the subject of extensive briefing and discussion with Judge Beckloff and the parties.

As to items (1) through (4), the recommendations are reasonable, appropriate, and no party has filed any objection. These will be adopted as the court’s order.

As to item (5), Judge Beckloff proposes the following schedule for Phase 1, noting that the trial date is subject to the court’s calendar:

                January 17, 2025:              Discovery stay lifted

                May 30, 2025:                    Fact discovery completed

                June 23, 2025:                    Opening expert reports due

                July 16, 2025:                     Rebuttal expert reports due

                August 6, 2025:                  Expert discovery completed

                August 27, 2025:               Trial briefs due

                September 15, 2025:      Phase 1 trial begins

The court notes that this schedule does not expressly include mediation/ settlement. An issue for discussion (as a meet-and-confer issue among the parties and also with Judge Beckloff) is the mechanism for and timing of settlement discussions as to Phase 1 issues. The court recognizes that settlement discussions among large numbers of parties require separate organization and planning, and usually take place over several sessions. Whether or not a universal settlement is reached, settlement discussions may substantially limit issues to be tried. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 850, subd. (d).) This is an open issue for later discussion and orders, as appropriate.

Plaintiffs have requested further CMCs to be set for February 14, 2025, and March 14, 2025, at which motions may be heard.

Counsel are to be prepared to discuss these scheduling issues at the CMC.

Was this helpful?

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.