Hurt by a Sand Canyon Wedding Venue That Was Never Allowed to Exist? Here Is Who You Can Sue.

Oasis Ranch House, 27415 Triumph Avenue, told the public it was closed, kept taking bookings, and hosted a 200-guest wedding on October 18 while under an open City zoning case. A residential parcel cannot be licensed as a venue or a bar. Couples who paid for it, guests served there, neighbors trespassed on, and anyone hit by a driver leaving it all have legal options. This is the map.

On Sunday afternoon, October 18, a wedding with an estimated 200 or more guests filled the gated property at 27415 Triumph Avenue in Sand Canyon. Several hundred cars were waved onto the vacant lot at 16350 Valley Ranch Road. When that filled, guests parked on a neighbor’s lawn across the street. The neighbor was not asked. A resident recorded all of it from the public road and called the Sheriff; Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department complaint SCT 26291-0156 was logged.

None of it was supposed to be happening. The parcel is zoned residential. The City of Santa Clarita has had an open zoning-violation case on the property, Case CE-26-1754, since at least September. The Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector, which issues business licenses for Santa Clarita, confirmed in writing on September 22 that the address is “residential” and that the County “doesn’t license home-based businesses.” No liquor license has ever been issued to the address. And that is the point this article turns on: a wedding venue with a bar on a residential lot in Sand Canyon is not unlicensed because someone forgot to apply. It is unlicensable. There is no permit the operator could have obtained that would have made Sunday legal.

“Closed” to the public, open for business

Good Shepherd Media first put the City on written notice about this property on August 25. On September 16, City Manager Ken Striplin wrote back that code enforcement staff were “actively working with the property owners to address the outstanding issues and bring the properties into compliance.” What happened next was not compliance. It was concealment.

Roughly three weeks ago, the venue’s Yelp listing was updated to read “Yelpers report this location has closed.” MapQuest now lists it as “Permanently closed.” As of October 18, the venue’s own website, oasisranchhouse.com, displays two words: “COMING SOON.” But the Internet Archive remembers what that site said for three years. In December 2023 it advertised “a 20-person bar with surround sound speakers and a fire pit” and “a raised platform in the backyard, perfect for that DJ or wedding band.” In December 2024: “WEDDINGS – EVENTS – BABY SHOWERS – ENGAGEMENTS – FILMING … We can accommodate up to 250 guests … call David at 818-427-3131.” In July 2026 the capacity quietly dropped to 150. And while the public-facing pages went dark, the booking platforms never did: on the day of the wedding, the Giggster listing (“Backyard Oasis in Canyon Country,” host “David D.,” five-hour minimum, 200 guests) and the VenueReport listing (200 seated, 300 standing, “20 person bar,” “Licensed Server Is Required,” curfew 10 p.m.) were both live and taking inquiries. Breezit lists the venue “from $6,351.”

An operator who tells Yelp he is closed, tells Giggster he is open, and hosts 200 people on a Sunday knows exactly what he is doing. In the law, that knowledge has a name: it is the difference between a mistake and fraud.

That record matters to every person described below, because California law treats a defendant who knew very differently from one who did not. Knowledge is what opens the door to fraud damages, to punitive damages, and to the “willful” element in the criminal statutes. The operator built that record himself.

If you booked your wedding there

You paid, by the venue’s own listings, somewhere between several thousand and tens of thousands of dollars for a date on a property that could not lawfully host you. Perhaps your event went forward and you now learn it was illegal; perhaps you have a deposit down on a future date; perhaps your day was cut short by a deputy at the gate. In each case the contract you signed had an unlawful object, and California does not make you eat that loss.

A practical note: send the CLRA demand letter now. It costs a stamp, starts a 30-day clock, and if the operator does not refund you, it unlocks attorney’s fees, which is what makes a consumer lawyer take the case.

If you were hit by a driver leaving the venue

This is where honesty matters more than outrage, so read carefully. California has one of the strongest “dram shop” immunities in the country. Civil Code § 1714(c) and Business & Professions Code § 25602(c) say that serving alcohol is not the legal cause of a drunk driver’s crash; the drinking is. If the driver who hit you was 21 or older, you generally cannot sue the venue for pouring the drinks, licensed or not. You sue the driver and the driver’s insurer. The venue’s illegality still helps you: it is evidence for a police report, and every official record of the event supports your claim against the driver.

But there is one door the Legislature left open, and an unlicensed venue bar walks straight through it. Business & Professions Code § 25602.1 allows a lawsuit against a licensee or any person who sells alcohol and is required to be licensed who serves an obviously intoxicated minor (under 21) who then injures someone. The California Supreme Court held in Ennabe v. Manosa (2014) 58 Cal.4th 697 that a house-party host who charged money and furnished alcohol was a “person who sells” under that statute and could be sued. A venue that bundles a “20 person bar” into a paid booking is exactly that person.

If you are a neighbor

If guests parked on your lawn, blocked your driveway, kept you up, or left trash and traffic in a fire-evacuation corridor, you do not need the City’s permission to act. California lets a private citizen sue to stop a public nuisance when it hurts her more than the general public, and parking on your grass is a textbook trespass.

What about the City of Santa Clarita?

Residents have asked whether they can sue the City for letting this continue after it was told, in writing, repeatedly, by this publication and others. The record of notice is not in dispute: Good Shepherd Media’s August 25 complaint, read receipts from the Mayor and three councilmembers in September, the City Manager’s September 16 letter, the City Clerk’s October 5 confirmation of three open cases, and a wedding on October 18. The City knew.

Here is the straight answer. California’s Government Claims Act makes a damages lawsuit against a city for failing to enforce its own laws very difficult. Government Code § 818.2 says a public entity is not liable for “failure to enforce any law,” § 821 says the same for its employees, and § 820.2 immunizes discretionary decisions. Courts apply these broadly (Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112). Anyone who tells you a damages suit against the City for not citing this venue is a sure thing is selling something.

That does not mean the City is untouchable. Three things are real:

The laws the venue is breaking

Based on the venue’s own advertising, the County’s written confirmation that no license exists, the City’s open zoning case, and the October 18 video, these are the statutes and ordinances in play. None has been adjudicated; all are what a prosecutor or a plaintiff’s lawyer would look at first.

What to do today

Couples: gather your contract, every payment record, every text and email with “David” or the venue, and screenshots of the listings you relied on. Send the CLRA demand letter. Ask the operator in writing whether he disclosed to you that the property was under a City zoning case; his answer, or his silence, is evidence.

Crash victims: get the collision report and the LASD complaint number from the event date. Ask the investigating officer to note where the driver had been. If the driver was under 21, see a personal-injury attorney this week about § 25602.1.

Neighbors: photograph vehicles on your property with plates and time visible, call LASD at (661) 255-1121 every event so the dispatch record builds, file a Community Preservation complaint citing Case CE-26-1754, and file the ABC complaint. Keep a log. Three dispatch records and a video are a nuisance case.

Everyone: file the Government Claim. Six months runs faster than you think.

Good Shepherd Media has asked the City of Santa Clarita, in writing, whether the operator told the City it had closed, whether any Notice of Violation has issued in Case CE-26-1754, and whether the City intends to seek an injunction. The City’s answers, or its silence, will be published. The venue operator has not responded to requests for comment.

This article is journalism, not legal advice. It describes California statutes and published court decisions as they stood on the date of publication. Whether any claim succeeds depends on facts specific to you, and several of the deadlines above are short and unforgiving. Talk to a California-licensed attorney before you rely on anything here. Statutes cited are available at leginfo.legislature.ca.gov and ecode360.com/SA4627. Sources for the facts reported: City of Santa Clarita responses to Public Records Requests #11078335, #11078345 and #11111772; Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector correspondence of September 11 and 22, 2026; Internet Archive captures of oasisranchhouse.com dated December 14, 2023, December 16, 2024 and July 26, 2026; live listings on Giggster, VenueReport, Breezit, Yelp and MapQuest captured October 18, 2026; LASD complaint SCT 26291-0156; resident video. If you were affected by this venue and want to share documents, reach the reporter at the address below.

By Good Shepherd Media | Faith, Scripture & Real Life

Primary Scripture: Matthew 25:14–30
Related Scripture: Luke 19:11–27

Introduction: What Are You Doing With What God Has Given You?

One of the most challenging teachings of Jesus Christ concerns a question every person should eventually ask: What am I doing with what I have been given?

In Matthew 25:14–30, Jesus tells the story of a master who entrusts his possessions to three servants before departing on a journey. To one servant, he gives five talents; to another, two; and to the third, one. Each receives a different amount, and each must decide what to do with the responsibility entrusted to him.

Two servants put their master’s money to work and increase what they have received. The third servant, however, becomes fearful. Rather than investing the money or seeking a productive way to use it, he buries it in the ground.

When the master returns, he rewards the servants who acted faithfully and confronts the servant who did nothing with what he had been given.

At first glance, this may seem like a lesson about money, investment, or business. But Jesus is teaching something far more profound: the importance of faithfulness, personal responsibility, courage, accountability, and readiness for the Kingdom of Heaven.

The parable challenges us to examine how we use our time, abilities, opportunities, resources, influence, and knowledge. It also confronts a dangerous temptation: believing that avoiding mistakes is the same as doing what is right.

God’s question is not simply what we possess, but how faithfully we use what has been entrusted to us.

1. Understanding the Historical Meaning of a Talent

Before examining the parable, it is important to understand what Jesus meant by a talent.

In the biblical world, a talent was a substantial unit of weight used to measure precious metals and, by extension, a significant amount of money. It was not originally a word meaning a person’s natural ability, musical gift, or professional skill. The modern English meaning of talent as an aptitude developed in part through the influence of this parable.

A talent represented considerable wealth. The precise modern equivalent depends on the metal, valuation method, and historical assumptions used, so assigning it a single present-day dollar value can be misleading.

Nevertheless, the scale of the master’s entrustment is clear. He was not handing his servants insignificant sums. He was placing substantial resources under their care.

Matthew 25:15 explains that the master distributed his wealth according to each servant’s ability. One received five talents, another two, and another one.

This detail matters.

The master did not give everyone an identical assignment. He entrusted different amounts according to their respective capacities.

The lesson is not that every person receives the same resources, opportunities, intelligence, physical strength, financial circumstances, or responsibilities. Human lives are different. People begin from different places, encounter different obstacles, and possess different gifts.

But the parable teaches that each person remains responsible for what has actually been entrusted to them.

A person with modest resources should not despise what they possess simply because someone else has more. Likewise, a person entrusted with considerable resources should not assume that wealth itself proves righteousness or divine approval.

The issue is faithfulness.

2. The Master Departs: A Period of Trust and Responsibility

Jesus begins the story by describing a man preparing to travel to a distant country. Before leaving, the man calls his servants and entrusts his possessions to them.

The master does not remain beside them every day, directing every decision. He gives them responsibility and leaves them to act.

This establishes one of the central themes of the parable: stewardship.

A steward is someone entrusted with property, resources, or responsibilities that ultimately belong to someone else. A faithful steward does not regard the master’s possessions as an excuse for selfishness. Instead, the steward recognizes the obligation to manage them wisely.

The biblical principle extends well beyond financial affairs.

Consider the many things people may be entrusted with:

• Time: Every day presents opportunities to help others, learn, work, pray, and do what is right.
• Knowledge: Understanding creates opportunities to teach, warn, protect, and serve.
• Abilities: Skills can be used to build, repair, create, encourage, and solve problems.
• Financial resources: Money can support families, provide necessities, fund worthwhile work, and assist people in need.
• Influence: A person’s words and reputation can encourage others toward truth or lead them toward error.
• Positions of responsibility: Parents, business owners, public servants, teachers, and community leaders all make decisions that affect other people.

None of these responsibilities is automatically virtuous. Knowledge can be used to deceive, money can be used to exploit, and influence can be used to manipulate.

The moral question is how these things are used.

The parable asks readers to consider whether they are treating their opportunities as responsibilities or wasting them through indifference, selfishness, or fear.

3. The First Two Servants: Faithfulness Through Action

Matthew 25:16–17 describes the first two servants responding to their assignments.

The servant who received five talents puts them to work and gains five more. The servant who received two does the same and gains two more.

Both act.

Both accept responsibility.

Both produce a return from what they have received.

Yet their achievements differ in size. One gains five talents, while the other gains two. Jesus does not condemn the second servant for producing a smaller total. Instead, both ultimately receive the same words of commendation from their master.

In Matthew 25:21 and 25:23, the master tells each faithful servant, in substance, that he has done well, has been faithful over a few things, and will be entrusted with greater responsibility. Both are invited to share in their master’s joy.

This is one of the most encouraging elements of the entire parable.

The master’s praise is based on faithfulness, not on the servants having identical starting points or identical totals.

The servant who began with two talents was not expected to produce the same absolute return as the servant who began with five. Each was responsible for the assignment received.

This principle challenges the habit of measuring our lives exclusively against other people.

Someone else may possess more money, greater intelligence, better connections, superior physical abilities, or opportunities we never received. Comparing ourselves endlessly with those people can distract us from our own responsibilities.

The second servant did not bury his two talents because another servant had received five. He acted with what was available to him.

Imagine a person who has little money but consistently helps a struggling neighbor. Consider someone who possesses technical knowledge and uses it to protect vulnerable people from fraud. Think of a business owner who treats employees honestly, a parent who raises children with patience, or a journalist who pursues truth despite pressure to remain silent.

These examples illustrate how responsibility can be exercised in very different circumstances.

The point is not that every undertaking will produce financial success or visible results. Nor does the parable promise that every faithful action will be rewarded with worldly prosperity.

Rather, it teaches that what we have been given should not be wasted merely because our circumstances are less impressive than those of someone else.

Faithfulness begins where we are.

4. The Third Servant: When Fear Becomes an Excuse for Inaction

The third servant receives one talent. Unlike the first two servants, he does not put it to productive use.

Matthew 25:18 states that he digs a hole in the ground and hides his master’s money.

At first, his decision might appear cautious. He has not lost the money through a failed investment. He has not gambled it away. He has preserved the original amount.

But Jesus does not present preservation alone as sufficient faithfulness.

When the master returns, the servant explains his conduct by appealing to fear. In Matthew 25:24–25, he describes the master as a hard man, says that he was afraid, and admits that he hid the talent.

His explanation reveals the central failure: he allowed fear to govern his responsibility.

The servant did not merely experience uncertainty. He used his fear to justify doing nothing.

There is a difference between prudent caution and paralyzing fear. Wisdom considers risks, gathers information, and makes responsible decisions. Fear, when allowed to dominate, can turn every possible difficulty into a reason to avoid action altogether.

This can happen in ordinary life.

A person may know that someone is being mistreated but remain silent because speaking up might be uncomfortable. Another may possess the skills to help a struggling family but decide that the effort is too inconvenient. A business owner may know that a problem needs correcting but postpone action because accountability is unpleasant.

Sometimes restraint is wise. Not every opportunity should be pursued, and not every risk should be taken. The parable is not an instruction to act recklessly.

Its warning is different: do not use caution as a permanent excuse for refusing legitimate responsibility.

The third servant preserved the money physically, but he failed the purpose for which it had been entrusted to him.

Doing nothing is still a decision, and sometimes it is the very decision for which we must answer.

5. The Master’s Response: Accountability Is Unavoidable

When the master returns, he calls the servants to account.

The first two report what they have gained. The third returns the original talent and offers his explanation.

The master praises the first two servants. He condemns the third as wicked and slothful, questions why the servant did not at least place the money with bankers to earn interest, and orders that the talent be taken away and given to the servant who has ten talents.

Matthew 25:29 expresses the principle that the one who has will receive more, while the one who has not will lose even what he has.

This statement can sound harsh if read without considering the story’s setting. Jesus is not offering a universal economic law guaranteeing that wealthy people always become wealthier or that poor people deserve their poverty.

The passage concerns the master’s entrusted property and the servants’ responses to their responsibilities. Its central issue is faithfulness and accountability.

The master does not accept the third servant’s claim that returning the original sum settles the matter. The servant had been entrusted with a responsibility, not merely instructed to keep the money untouched.

The judgment emphasizes that responsibility carries consequences.

This is a difficult lesson in a culture that often celebrates intentions without examining outcomes, or treats the absence of obvious wrongdoing as proof that everything has been done properly.

Yet there are times when the failure to act can cause real harm. A person charged with protecting others may fail through neglect. A leader may allow preventable problems to continue. A professional may refuse to use knowledge that could help someone in danger.

The parable reminds us that accountability is not limited to the damage caused by reckless action. It also includes the opportunities and responsibilities we deliberately neglect.

6. Is the Parable About Earning Salvation?

This question deserves careful consideration.

Jesus is speaking about the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 25, and the parable concludes with a severe judgment. It would therefore be a mistake to reduce the story to a motivational lesson about productivity or business success.

At the same time, the parable should not be interpreted as teaching that people purchase salvation by accumulating achievements, earning money, or performing enough good deeds.

Ephesians 2:8–10 teaches that salvation is by grace through faith, not the result of works that allow anyone to boast. The passage then explains that believers are created in Christ Jesus for good works.

These verses hold together two important truths: salvation is God’s gift, and the life of faith is intended to produce a transformed way of living.

The Parable of the Talents fits within this larger biblical picture of discipleship and accountability. The servants’ actions reveal how they responded to the trust placed in them.

Their work is not presented as a purchase price for the master’s favor. Instead, their faithfulness distinguishes their responses to his entrustment.

Christians differ in how they explain the precise relationship between this parable, perseverance, judgment, and assurance of salvation. Nevertheless, the passage clearly warns against complacency and empty profession.

It is not enough to claim that one belongs to the master while consistently refusing the responsibilities associated with that relationship.

Neither should a person assume that financial success, professional achievement, or a large public reputation proves spiritual faithfulness.

A person can be prosperous and dishonest. Another can possess very little and live with extraordinary integrity.

The parable directs attention to faithfulness, not outward status.

7. The Connection to the Kingdom of Heaven

Matthew places the Parable of the Talents within Jesus’ teaching about His return and the need to remain ready.

The preceding Parable of the Ten Virgins emphasizes preparedness. The Parable of the Talents emphasizes responsible action during the period of waiting.

Together, they challenge a passive understanding of faith.

Waiting for the Lord does not mean abandoning present responsibilities. Nor does it mean becoming consumed by speculation about dates, predictions, or events beyond our control.

Instead, the parable points toward a life of faithful service while the master is away.

A Christian may demonstrate this through honest work, care for family, service to neighbors, responsible use of resources, and courage in doing what is right. These actions are not substitutes for faith; they are practical expressions of the responsibility associated with it.

The master eventually returns. The period of delegated responsibility is not endless.

This gives the parable an unmistakably eternal dimension. The question is not merely whether we can make our lives look successful to other people. It is whether we are prepared to answer for how we have lived.

Matthew 25:21 directs attention to the master’s joy. The faithful servants are not merely rewarded with additional property; they are welcomed into a relationship of joy with their master.

That is a richer picture than worldly achievement alone.

The ultimate aim is not to become impressive in the eyes of society. It is to live faithfully before God.

8. The Parable of the Minas in Luke 19:11–27

Luke records a related parable, often called the Parable of the Minas. The similarities are substantial, but the differences are important.

Luke 19:11 explains that Jesus tells the story because His listeners suppose that the Kingdom of God is going to appear immediately.

In this account, a nobleman travels to a distant country to receive royal authority and then return. Before departing, he gives ten servants one mina each and instructs them to conduct business until he returns.

A mina was a monetary unit distinct from a talent and was worth considerably less than a talent. The two stories should therefore not be treated as if their monetary details were identical.

When the nobleman returns, he calls the servants to account. One reports that his mina has produced ten more, and another reports a gain of five. Their rewards correspond to their reported results: authority over ten cities and five cities, respectively.

Another servant returns the original mina, explaining that he kept it stored away because he feared the nobleman.

The nobleman condemns the servant’s inaction and orders the mina to be given to the servant who has ten.

Luke’s version also contains elements absent from Matthew’s account: the nobleman’s claim to royal authority, opposition from citizens who do not want him to reign, and a concluding judgment against those enemies.

These details make Luke’s story especially relevant to the question of the King’s authority and the response of those who reject it.

Important similarities and differences

The two parables share a central warning: a period of waiting does not eliminate responsibility.

In Matthew, the unequal distribution highlights that people receive different amounts according to their abilities. In Luke, the equal initial distribution highlights what different servants do with the same starting amount.

That contrast provides a valuable perspective. Sometimes we are responsible for working with different resources from those around us. At other times, we are given similar opportunities but respond to them differently.

In both accounts, the response matters.

9. What Does the Parable Teach Us About Work, Money, and Business?

The parable has obvious relevance to financial stewardship, but its message must be applied carefully.

The first two servants put their master’s resources to work. Their actions show initiative, and the master commends their faithfulness.

This supports the idea that responsible management, productive effort, and thoughtful use of resources can be worthwhile forms of stewardship.

However, the story does not authorize dishonesty, exploitation, or the pursuit of wealth at any cost. Nor does it promise that every investment will succeed.

Biblical teaching elsewhere places clear moral limits on financial activity. Proverbs 11:1 condemns dishonest scales, and Leviticus 19:13 prohibits defrauding or robbing one’s neighbor. In Matthew 6:24, Jesus warns that a person cannot serve both God and money.

These teachings prevent us from confusing profitability with righteousness.

A business may generate enormous revenue while mistreating workers or deceiving customers. Such success cannot, by itself, establish that its owners are faithful stewards.

Conversely, a business that treats people fairly, fulfills its obligations, provides useful services, and manages its resources responsibly may serve others in meaningful ways.

The practical lesson is that resources should be managed with diligence and integrity.

For an employee, this may mean doing honest work rather than deliberately neglecting duties. For an entrepreneur, it may mean building something useful without abandoning ethical standards. For a person struggling financially, it may mean making careful decisions with limited resources rather than feeling ashamed of not having what others possess.

The parable encourages responsible action, but it does not excuse greed or turn the Gospel into a promise of material prosperity.

10. What If You Have Only One Talent?

Perhaps the most personal aspect of the story is the servant who receives only one talent.

It is easy to imagine how a person might feel in his position. He receives less than the others. He may wonder why he was given so little, whether he is capable of doing anything worthwhile, or whether his contribution will ever matter.

But the master does not tell the servant that one talent is worthless.

The problem is what the servant does with it.

This is an important distinction for people who feel overlooked, disadvantaged, inexperienced, or limited by circumstances beyond their control.

You may not possess the financial resources of a wealthy person. You may not have the education, connections, health, or professional opportunities enjoyed by someone else. You may have experienced failure or spent years recovering from poor decisions.

None of those facts automatically means that your remaining opportunities are without value.

The parable does not tell us that everyone can achieve the same worldly results. It does not erase hardship or promise that diligent effort will always produce visible success.

It does, however, challenge the belief that having less is a reason to do nothing.

A single act of kindness may matter greatly to the person who receives it. A small amount of money may provide an essential meal. A warning shared at the right time may protect someone from danger. A quiet act of honesty may preserve another person’s trust.

Not every meaningful contribution attracts public attention.

Some of the most important work in a person’s life may never be celebrated by a crowd. Faithfulness is not made worthless by a lack of applause.

The question is whether we are willing to use what we have for purposes that are good and worthwhile.

11. Fear, Excuses, and the Danger of Burying Our Opportunities

The third servant’s explanation also invites us to examine the stories we tell ourselves.

Fear often presents itself as reasonable. We may say that we will help when we have more money, speak when circumstances become easier, serve when we have more time, or begin a worthwhile project when we feel completely prepared.

Sometimes waiting is necessary. Wisdom requires preparation, and some situations demand patience.

But preparation can become an excuse that never ends.

The servant who buried his talent did not return with a productive result. He returned with an explanation.

His story warns us that we can become so concerned about avoiding failure that we never undertake the responsibilities placed before us.

This does not mean that every failure is a moral failure. People can work diligently and still encounter losses, illness, opposition, or circumstances beyond their control. The first two servants’ success should not be turned into a judgment against every person who experiences hardship.

The servant in the parable is condemned for his response to the trust he received, not because Jesus declares that every unsuccessful effort deserves punishment.

The distinction is essential.

We cannot control every outcome, but we can seek to act honestly, thoughtfully, and faithfully. We can learn from mistakes, reconsider our methods, and continue doing what is right when circumstances permit.

The parable calls for responsibility rather than perfectionism.

12. The Reward of Faithfulness: Sharing in the Master’s Joy

The master’s response to the first two servants contains a promise that reaches beyond the immediate financial results.

Both servants hear that they have been faithful. Both are entrusted with greater responsibility. Both are invited to share in the master’s joy.

The reward is not simply the accumulation of additional money. It is approval from the one whose trust they were given.

For Christians, this points toward the hope of being found faithful before the Lord.

The New Testament repeatedly encourages believers to persevere in doing good. Galatians 6:9 urges readers not to grow weary in well-doing, because a harvest comes in its proper season if they do not give up.

That principle does not guarantee immediate results. Good work may go unnoticed. Honest people may suffer losses. Those who serve others may receive little recognition in return.

Yet the absence of public recognition does not determine the value of faithfulness.

A life can be meaningful even when its accomplishments are not widely known. A person can honor God through ordinary duties performed with honesty, patience, generosity, and courage.

The parable therefore offers both a warning and an encouragement.

The warning is that responsibility should not be neglected. The encouragement is that faithfulness is not reserved for those who begin with the greatest resources.

The servant who received two talents received the same commendation as the servant who received five.

That truth should encourage every person who sincerely seeks to do what is right with what has been entrusted to them.

13. Examining Our Own Lives

The Parable of the Talents is not merely a story about three servants in the distant past. It invites every reader to consider personal responsibility.

We can begin by asking ourselves a few honest questions.

Am I using my abilities constructively?

Do I use what I know to help others, solve problems, and contribute something worthwhile? Or do I allow useful skills to remain undeveloped because exercising them requires effort?

Am I managing my resources responsibly?

Do I treat money, property, time, and possessions as responsibilities requiring wisdom and integrity? Do I consider how my decisions affect other people?

Am I allowing fear to prevent necessary action?

Have I avoided a worthwhile responsibility because I am afraid of criticism, inconvenience, uncertainty, or failure? Is my caution reasonable, or have I allowed it to become an excuse?

Am I measuring myself against the wrong standard?

Do I spend so much time comparing my circumstances with those of others that I neglect the opportunities available to me? Have I mistaken public recognition or financial success for proof of a meaningful life?

Am I prepared to answer for my decisions?

Do I acknowledge mistakes and correct them where possible? Do I act as though my responsibilities matter even when no one is watching?

These questions are not intended to produce despair. They are an invitation to reflection and change.

If we recognize that we have wasted time, neglected a duty, or failed to use an opportunity wisely, we can begin correcting our course. We can seek forgiveness, make amends where appropriate, and approach future responsibilities with greater care.

The purpose of examining our lives is not to become trapped in regret. It is to become more faithful in the present.

Conclusion: Do Not Bury What Has Been Entrusted to You

The Parable of the Talents delivers a message that remains relevant across generations.

Three servants receive resources from their master. Two respond with initiative and faithfulness. One allows fear to prevent him from acting. When the master returns, each servant must answer for what he has done.

Jesus’ teaching challenges the assumption that responsibility can be satisfied merely by avoiding obvious mistakes. It calls us to consider the purpose of what we possess and the obligations that accompany it.

The story also reminds us that people do not begin from identical circumstances. Some receive more resources, while others receive less. The faithful servants in Matthew’s account are nevertheless commended according to the trust placed in them, not according to an expectation that everyone must produce the same total.

For Christians, the parable points toward a life lived in readiness for the Lord’s return. Faith is not a reason to become passive. It is a reason to approach our responsibilities with diligence, integrity, and hope.

Our talents may take the form of knowledge, money, professional skills, opportunities to serve, or the ability to encourage another person. Whatever our circumstances, we should be careful not to waste what can be used for good.

We cannot determine every outcome. We cannot control every opportunity. And we cannot measure the worth of a person’s life by wealth, status, or public recognition.

But we can choose to act faithfully with what is entrusted to us.

The central question is not whether we have received as much as someone else. It is whether we are willing to do what is right with what we have received.

Do not bury your opportunities in fear. Do not confuse inactivity with faithfulness. And do not assume that a small beginning makes a contribution insignificant.

One day, every earthly responsibility will come to an end. The possessions we accumulate and the recognition we receive will not be the final measure of our lives.

For those who seek to follow Christ, the goal is to be found faithful.

“Well done, thou good and faithful servant.” — Matthew 25:21 (KJV)

Scripture References for Further Study

• Matthew 25:14–30 — The Parable of the Talents
• Luke 19:11–27 — The Parable of the Minas
• Matthew 24:42–51 — Watchfulness and readiness
• Matthew 6:19–24 — Treasures in heaven and the danger of serving money
• Ephesians 2:8–10 — Salvation by grace and the calling to good works
• Galatians 6:7–10 — Perseverance in doing good
• Proverbs 11:1 — Honesty in business and dealings with others
• 1 Corinthians 4:1–2 — The faithfulness required of stewards

Good Shepherd Media
Truth | Awareness | A Stronger Tomorrow

Kent Sommer is an adjunct professor and teaches Legal Analysis Workshop Chapman University Fowler School of Law in 2012. chapman.edu

Psalm 91:3 states, “Surely he will save you from the fowler’s snare and from the deadly pestilence“

Kent Merrill Sommer # 262832 – This guy has been in practice for 17 years plus has a AVVO 6.6 rating out of 10 and has no firm that we can find other than LA Assessors Office. In our opinion he Does Not Hold Real Weight, He works for the Government where stupidity is rampant and diligence is not necessary.

It is our opinion, that Kent Sommer supports liars helps deviants manipulate the system. His clients have feelings towards harsh language, and lie about the content of speech. Kent Sommer is1st Amendment incompetant! in our opinion Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) inflammatory speech or radical political advocacy is protected Schenck v. United States | 249 U.S. 47 (1919) and Cohen v. California | 403 U.S. 15 (1971) is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision protecting the public display of offensive or provocative language under the First Amendment

Does Attorney Kent Merrill Sommer Need a Good SLAPP-BACK?

ANTI SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation), Well its coming 

Kent Merrill Sommer will be getting a SLAPP-BACK

The city hiring a second lawyer tells you the matter got more expensive and riskier to handle with one person Lauren Elizabeth Sible may not be as good at 1st amendment law as her slow ass thought. look at Sible’s eyes at best guess an IQ of 100, Dopey and slow looking to us… but… then again look at Kent he looks constipated and painfully trying to smile! Not much going on in their minds, just average losers not matched for an IQ of 168. Not even close!

The County’s restraining order case (26*******63), where Lauren Sible has now been joined by Kent Sommers. We forced it: a self-represented litigant who files cited, procedurally correct papers can’t be handled on autopilot.

• A contested case. You filed a full response, a non-stipulation, and a peremptory challenge, so this is no longer a ten-minute uncontested order.
• A production order. The judge ordered the County to turn over the call recordings, incident reports, and video five days before the next hearing. Someone has to review that material, and it may not match the petition.
• An anti-SLAPP motion coming. If you win it, the County pays fees, and either side can appeal immediately. County Counsel usually brings in a more senior or motion-experienced deputy when that’s on the table.
• A weak spot of its own making. The Assessor reversed all 19 reassessments, and staff named in the petition kept corresponding with you cordially afterward. That undercuts any claim of an ongoing threat, and they need someone to work out how to handle it.

A second attorney most likely means the case got harder than they planned for, and your filings are what made it harder. The addition of a second attorney means the city is taking the volume and intensity of your legal filings seriously and is scaling up its administrative capacity to match your output.

• Automatic Stay: An Anti-SLAPP motion automatically freezes the standard discovery process. Navigating how a subpoena interacts with an Anti-SLAPP freeze requires highly specific statutory knowledge.
• Fee-Shifting Risk: If you win an Anti-SLAPP motion, the city could be forced to pay your legal fees. Because public funds are at stake, municipal guidelines often mandate bringing in a senior or specialized attorney to oversee the defense and mitigate financial risk.
• The anti-SLAPP motion raised the stakes. A 425.16 motion carries mandatory fee-shifting and an automatic right of appeal. A routine petition became a matter with real cost exposure for the city, and that justifies more hours and a second set of eyes.
• Protected Speech – The core of this battle rests on a complex area of Constitutional law. While name-calling and racial slurs are offensive, they are protected under the First Amendment

Look at this man’s shit home. Dilapidated, Unkept balls everywhere except where they should be, between ones legs! His lawn is half dead, half weeds and dirt!

This guy has an annual salary of $201,505 breaks down to $96.88 per hour before taxes!

A. Anti-SLAPP framework (§ 425.16)

B. What a “credible threat” is — and isn’t

C. Rude, vulgar, insulting speech to public employees is protected

D. Publishing public employees’ information · assembly

E. Retaliation by government · scope of any order · the Court’s power

F. Evidence rules (why the County’s proof fails)

Statutes doing the heavy lifting :

CCP § 527.8 (b)(2), (b)(4), (b)(8), (c), (f), (k), (p), (q) · CCP § 425.16 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) · Civ. Code § 47(b) · Evid. Code §§ 352, 412, 1101(a) · Penal Code §§ 653.2, 653m · CCP § 170.6 · CCP § 2015.5.

Does Attorney Lauren Elizabeth Sible Need a Good SLAPP BACK?

This is about a public grievance (the official’s conduct and the recording/phone-seizure incident and all of their failures at solving the Tax mistake they made even after they received all the asked for, they still continue to harm the elderly an 86 year old wheelchair bound man and his 79 year old wife)

We encourage all communication to remain peaceful, lawful, and in the finest tradition of First Amendment civic engagement. Protected political speech under Snyder v. Phelps and Connick v. Myers,Save this page. We will be working with our partners & team members gathering supporters. sometimes this can take months. please sign up so we know we can count on your support. Contact our news publishing company https://goodshepherdmedia.net/peaceful-assembly-form/

YOUR IP ADDRESS IS: 17.166.21.203

all data on this site was legally obtained and is publicly reposted data this site falls under the 1st amendment and the freedom of press will continue!

Peaceful Assembly

WE HAVE THE RIGHT AS US CITIZENS TO PEACEFULLY ASSEMBLE QUIETLY AND NOT TRESPASS NOT BLOCK ACCESS TO ANY ROAD OR PATHWAY AND HAND OUT LEAFLETS OF TRUTHFUL INFORMATION THAT CONTAINS NEWS OF INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR TRUTHFUL ACTIONS, JUST LIKE FOX NEWS 11 AND THE BIDEN LAPTOP. BUT STILL PLEASE DONT BOTHER ANYONE HERE AT THE ADDRESS ABOVE. 1st Amendment Right of the US Constitution for Peaceful Public Assembly 

PEACEFUL PROTEST INVOLVES BEING KIND HOLDING YOUR SIGN OR LEAFLETS AND GETTING YOUR MESSAGE ACROSS. YOU CANNOT BLOCK SIDEWALK, SHE IS NOT BELOW. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BLOCK OTHERS MOVEMENT. SO STAY OUT OF PEOPLE’S WAY OF MOVEMENT AND BE CALM HOLD YOUR SIGN AND KEEP UP YOUR DOINGS !

  THIS SITE IS NOT AFFILITATED WITH ANY OTHER ORGANIZATION, WE ARE AN INDEPENDENT NON-PROFIT AIDING THE PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC MATTERS OF ADDRESS IN A PEACEFUL PUBLIC MANNER TO CONVEY THE MESSAGE OF THE PEOPLE IN A PASSIVE PEACEFUL MANNER THAT ALLOWS EVERYONE TO BE AND FEEL SAFE AND STILL BE HEARD.

 Registered Agent Locked Family’s Mail, Then Cut Service

RegisteredAgentsInc.com Reviews Network Locks Family’s Mail, Then Cuts Service  Oct 9, 2026

delawareregisteredagent.com Review
wyomingagents.com Review

WE HAVE YOU RECORDED LYING, 2 OPPOSING ANSWERS MANY VERSIONS OF FAILURE OF FUDCIARY DUTIES

DO NOT GO TO RegisteredAgentsInc.com delawareregisteredagent.com OR wyomingagents.com

NEVER PUT YOUR TRUST IN A COMPANY THAT HAS SUCH BAD REVIEWS ON MORE THAN ONE REVIEW SITE AND NEVER EVER TRUST A COMPANY WHO GOT AN ARTICLE WRITTEN ABOUT THEM TO STAY AWAY, THAT MEANS THEY PISSED SOMEONE OFF THAT MUCH WITH THEIR SERVICE THAT I CAME TO THIS ARTICLE AND HUNDREDS OF REVIEWS FROM MANY OTHER UNSATISFIED CLIENTS 

A Wyoming-based firm that serves as the legal mailbox for hundreds of thousands of companies charged an elderly couple’s businesses to see their own government mail, then terminated all 14 accounts a week after the family complained.

By Good Shepherd Media · October 2026

“Any future mail we receive after the termination date will be locked and subject to a $50 access fee per item.”

When a company hires a registered agent, it is hiring the one party the law trusts to receive its lawsuits, tax notices, and state filings. If that agent fails, a business can lose a case it never knew existed.

For Teresa , 79, and Fred , 86, that trust broke down this fall. The couple’s family businesses, 14 limited liability companies holding real estate and family enterprises, learned that government mail addressed to them had been sitting in an account they had closed more than a year earlier. It was locked behind fees.

Two brands, one mothership

Since at least October 2024, the family had used Wyoming Registered Agent Services LLC, which operates wyomingagents.com. By spring 2025, unhappy with the service, they planned to switch to delawareregisteredagent.com, run by A Registered Agent, Inc. of Dover, Delaware.

First, they called to make sure the two were not the same company. On a call the company announced was being recorded, Philip asked, “You guys are not Delaware registered agents, right?” A representative answered, “No, just Wyoming.” Teresa Zullo was present for the call.

The family moved all 14 companies to the Delaware brand on or about May 26, 2025.

A later recorded call told a different story. A representative said the brands are “owned by the same corporation, so to speak,” and that their “mothership company” is Registered Agents Inc. of Sheridan, Wyoming (registeredagentsinc.com). The termination notice the family later received came from that company’s own address, highvalue@registeredagentsinc.com.

The public record points the same way. The two brands publish nearly identical terms of service. Both choose Washington State law and federal court in Spokane. Both websites run analytics through corporatetools.com; Corporate Tools LLC is owned by Registered Agents Inc. The Delaware brand’s own website describes a local company that “began as a one-person operation out of a private home in Delaware” and promises clients “your information stays with us.”

Mail in the wrong mailbox

This September, the Los Angeles County Assessor told the family it had sent mail that never appeared in their paid Delaware account. Philip Zullo, who manages the companies, tried logging into the old Wyoming account. His login still worked more than a year later.

Inside were 83 documents for the family’s companies, dated from December 4, 2025 to September 10, 2026, including a state notice and a high-priority item. All were locked. On September 10, an email from Registered Agents Inc. required $622.50 to unlock them; the invoice was billed to one of the family’s companies but covered every entity in the account. Further items carried per-document fees.

On September 30, Zullo wrote to the company that “Wyoming is hiding mail for companies no longer paid for” while the family’s paid accounts were with the Delaware brand. The company acknowledged the issue the next day.

Terminated in a single afternoon

On October 8, Registered Agents Inc. sent a “formal notice” that it would end “all services for the companies currently in your account, effective October 8, 2026.” The email said “our business goals and practices are not aligned.” It said mail received afterward “will be locked and subject to a $50 access fee per item.”

Within minutes, the Delaware brand sent 14 emails, one per company, stating that services had been “updated as requested.” The family says it made no such request. Zullo replied that night: “What are you talking about?”

The company’s notice promised refunds of recent payments and told the family to file new registered agents with each state. Under Wyoming and Delaware law, a company that loses its agent and does not replace it in time can be dissolved or canceled.

A duty with no fiduciary?

Registered agents act on a company’s behalf, and some courts treat that role as one of trust. In 2017, a federal appeals court revived a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim against a registered agent whose handling of legal papers left a company facing a $9.7 million default judgment (International Environmental Management v. United Corporate Services, 8th Cir.).

The terms used by both brands say the opposite. They state that their services create no fiduciary duty, cap liability at one year of fees, and give the company alone the right to force disputes into private arbitration. They also say that on termination the company is released from any duty to notify clients of lawsuits or mail, even if its address remains on state records.

California law adds protections for older residents. The state’s Elder Abuse Act defines financial abuse to include depriving an elder of a property right, including through an agreement, when the business knew or should have known its conduct was likely to be harmful (Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.30). Whether that law reaches mail held for the couple’s companies is a question for the courts.

A firm under scrutiny before

Registered Agents Inc., founded in 2008, operates from 30 N. Gould St. in Sheridan, Wyoming. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists reported in March 2025 that more than 266,000 companies were incorporated using that address between 2019 and 2024. Wired reported in 2024 that the firm used fictitious names on filings, which the firm called “patently wrong.” In May 2024, Wyoming’s Secretary of State dissolved three companies registered through the firm that the FBI linked to North Korean fraud.

A company spokesperson told ICIJ that registered agents “provide an avenue for legal notices to be served” and that the firm takes “appropriate steps to terminate service as a commercial registered agent when necessary or required.”

What the family wants

The Zullos have sent the companies a certified-mail Notice of Dispute, which the companies’ terms require before any suit. They are asking for release of all mail in both accounts without charge, a refund of the unlock fees, time to move their companies without a lapse, and a written account of how the brands are related.

“All my accounts are with Delaware and mail is paid for,” Zullo wrote to the company in September. “But Wyoming is hiding mail.”

Good Shepherd Media sent written questions to Registered Agents Inc., A Registered Agent, Inc., and Wyoming Registered Agent Services LLC on October ___, 2026. [Insert their response here, or: The companies did not respond by publication time.]

What happens next

The termination leaves the family a short window. Wyoming law requires an agent to give a company 30 days’ notice before filing its resignation with the state. After that, a company that does not name a new agent can be administratively dissolved. In Delaware, an LLC that fails to replace a resigning agent within 30 days has its certificate of formation canceled.

The family is appointing new agents for all 14 companies and asking the government agencies that write to them to update their records. Mail already sitting in the two old accounts is a separate fight. The companies’ terms say paper originals are destroyed 30 days after they are scanned.

The companies’ terms require the Zullos to wait 60 days after their Notice of Dispute before filing suit. If the dispute is not resolved, the family plans to file in Los Angeles County small claims court. The terms say disputes belong in Spokane, Washington, or in private arbitration, so the companies may challenge where the case is heard.

For Teresa Zullo, the lesson is simple. “We asked them directly if they were the same company,” she said. “They said no.” [Confirm this quote with Teresa, or delete it.]

The companies answer for hundreds of thousands of businesses whose owners may never check an old login. The Zullos found their mail only because a county office told them to look.

If you use a registered agent

• Log into every account you have ever opened with a registered agent, including old ones.
• Ask your agent in writing which company owns it, and which address the state lists for you.
• Check your state business record once a year to confirm your agent and address.
• Keep a second mailing address with your county assessor and tax agencies.

for any customer needing to leave them a review – Customer review (post from your own account)

Post one review per platform, under your own name, on Google, Yelp, Trustpilot, and the BBB for each brand. Stick to what happened to you and what the documents show.

Rating: 1 star

Title: Paid for mail in one portal, found it locked in another, then they dropped all 14 of our companies

Full review (Google, Trustpilot, BBB):

We managed 14 family LLCs through delawareregisteredagent.com (A Registered Agent, Inc.). Before switching from wyomingagents.com, I called to ask whether the two companies were related. On a recorded line, the rep told me “No, just Wyoming.” A later rep told me they are “owned by the same corporation” and their “mothership” is Registered Agents Inc.

This September, our county assessor told us it had mailed items that never showed up in our paid Delaware account. I logged into our old Wyoming account, and the login still worked more than a year later. Inside were 83 documents for our companies, going back to December 2025, all locked. They charged us $622.50 to unlock them, plus per-item fees.

I reported in writing that one portal was holding mail we had paid for in the other. They acknowledged it. A week later, on October 8, they terminated every company in our account the same day. Minutes later we got 14 emails saying our services were cancelled “as requested.” We never requested anything. Any mail they get for us now is locked at $50 an item.

A registered agent’s job is to make sure you get your legal and government mail. Ours ended up in the wrong account behind a paywall, and when we complained, we were cut off with almost no notice. Our owners are 79 and 86.

If you use any of these brands, log into every account you have ever opened with them, including old ones, and check your state business records. I would not trust them with a company I cared about.

Short version (Yelp, review sites with limits):

They told us on a recorded call that wyomingagents.com and delawareregisteredagent.com were not related. They are both owned by Registered Agents Inc. We paid for mail through the Delaware brand, but government mail for our 14 companies sat locked in our old Wyoming account until we paid $622.50 to see it. A week after we reported the problem, they terminated all our companies in one afternoon and emailed that it was “as requested.” It wasn’t. Avoid.

Where to post:

• Google Business profile for A Registered Agent, Inc., 8 The Green, Dover, DE (the company’s About Us page links its Google reviews)
• Google Business profile for Wyoming Registered Agent Services LLC, Sheridan, WY
• Google Business profile for Registered Agents Inc., Sheridan, WY
• BBB: file a complaint (not just a review) against each brand; companies must respond to complaints
• Trustpilot and Yelp: “A Registered Agent” (Dover) listing

Rules that keep a review safe: post only under your own name; do not have friends or family post reviews of things they did not experience. Teresa may post her own review in her own words, since she was on the calls. Do not call them “criminals” or “thieves”; stating what happened, with numbers and quotes, is more persuasive and protected as truthful. Ask Mr. Simran whether to post before or after the 60-day notice period, since the company may quote your review in arbitration or court.

Timeline (sidebar)

The dispute ran 17 months from the recorded denial to termination.

City Confirms Two Open Zoning Cases Against Sand Canyon Wedding Venues

Records the City won’t release show code enforcement is investigating a $4.2 million “private estate” on Josel Drive and a second venue on Triumph Avenue. A third operation, advertising 300-guest events on a 10-acre rural parcel, has now been reported to the City.

The City of Santa Clarita has confirmed in writing that it is investigating two Sand Canyon Estate properties marketed online as wedding and event venues for zoning violations, according to a public-records response obtained by Good Shepherd Media.

In a September 21 response to a California Public Records Act request, the City Clerk’s office identified two open code enforcement cases: Case CE-26-1754 for 27351 Triumph Avenue, marketed as Oasis Ranch House, and Case CE-26-1755 for 26505 Josel Drive, marketed as Villa de Palma. “Both cases involve zoning violations,” the City wrote.

The City declined to release the case files themselves, citing Government Code section 7923.600(a), which exempts investigatory records compiled for law-enforcement or licensing purposes. It referred further questions to Senior Officer Daniel Ramirez of the City’s Community Preservation Division.

The City also said it holds no business-license records for either address. Business licenses in Santa Clarita are administered by Los Angeles County, and liquor licenses by the state Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. Good Shepherd Media has filed records requests with both agencies.

A venue website the day before closing

The Josel Drive property, a residential parcel in Sand Canyon, sold for approximately $4.2 million on May 14, 2025, under the name “Laroca Villa and Ranch,” according to property records. Pages on the Villa de Palma venue website were published May 13, 2025, one day before escrow closed.

The site advertises events of up to 200 guests, parking for 120 cars, a bar and after-party lounge, overnight lodging for 18, and a planned 5,000-square-foot barn banquet hall. A listing on the wedding-planning platform The Knot indicates bartending staff are available. Good Shepherd Media found no California limited liability company registered under the venue’s name; the phone number listed for bookings carries a South Carolina area code.

Oasis Ranch House, on Triumph Avenue, is likewise a residential parcel advertised as a private-estate event venue. The City has not said which provisions of the zoning code are at issue in either case.

A third venue: 300 guests on a Non-Urban parcel

On September 20, Good Shepherd Media filed a supplemental complaint with the City identifying a third operation, Rolling Hills Ranch Venues at 27634 Rolling Hills Avenue. The City logged it as Request #11111772 the following morning and set an October 1 response date.

The venue’s website describes a “Private Estate Venue” on just over 10 acres with space for events up to 300 guests, four separately marketed event areas including “The Oak Grove” and “The Pool Terrace,” and in-house wedding-planning services. The site carries a 2023 copyright notice. Publicly available property records list the parcel’s zoning as Non-Urban 4.

Under Chapter 17.32 of the Santa Clarita Municipal Code, the NU4 zone is intended to preserve large-lot rural communities characterized by agricultural and equestrian uses, and any use not expressly listed as permitted is prohibited.   Commercial event facilities are not among the listed uses. Good Shepherd Media found no conditional use permit, temporary use permit, or special-event permit of record for the address.

A 300-guest event is, conservatively, 100 to 150 vehicles on a two-lane canyon road with no curb, gutter, sidewalk, or street lighting, in the corridor that burned in the 2016 Sand Fire and the 2019 Tick Fire.

All three properties sit on the rural roads east of Sand Canyon Road, the same network at the center of this summer’s Belcaro at Sand Canyon hearings, where residents repeatedly told the Planning Commission that wildfire evacuation capacity on those roads is already strained.

What Good Shepherd Media has asked the City

The supplemental complaint asks the City to open a case for the Rolling Hills Avenue parcel, inspect each property during a scheduled event, confirm in writing whether any permit or license exists for any of the three, and issue notices of violation where none does. It also asks the City to refer the operators to the Los Angeles County Fire Department for review of assembly occupancy and defensible space in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

Good Shepherd Media has asked the City to answer three questions by October 2: whether it considers a commercial event venue a permitted, conditionally permitted, or prohibited use in the NU4 zone; how many complaints it has received about each address since January 2023 and what it did in response; and whether any City official or councilmember has attended or been offered an event at any of the venues.

Good Shepherd Media has sent requests for comment to the listed contacts for each venue and will update this story with any response. Officer Ramirez had not responded to a request for comment by publication.

Editor’s note: This story is based on the City of Santa Clarita’s written response to Public Records Request #11078335, dated September 21, 2026; publicly available property and business records; and the venues’ own published marketing materials. Good Shepherd Media will publish the City’s responses to Request #11111772 and to its press inquiry when they are received. Residents with information about events at these or other properties can reach the reporter at the address below.