Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 24STCP02417, Date: 2024-10-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCP02417    Hearing Date: October 24, 2024    Dept: 86

MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT OPPOSITION

Date:               10/24/24 (1:30 PM)

Case:               Vincent Mouton v. Kimley Louie et al. (24STCP02417)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioner Vincent Mouton’s Motion to Proceed Without Opposition is DENIED.

Petitioner moves to proceed without opposition on the ground that respondents Kimley Louie, Los Angeles County Department of Consumer and Business Affairs (“DCBA”), and Rental Housing Oversight Commission, County of Los Angeles (“RHOC”) never served any responses, oppositions, or answers on petitioner.   

Louie served and filed an Answer on 9/23/24. DCBA served and filed an Answer on 9/9/24. (See also Corrected Proof of Service filed 9/17/24.) RHOC served and filed an Answer on 9/24/24. Respondents may accordingly participate in this litigation and oppose the petition for writ of administrative mandate.

Even assuming that certain Answers were not timely filed in accordance with CCP § 1089.5, petitioner does not show he is entitled to “proceed without opposition” on that basis. A “writ cannot be granted by default.” (CCP § 1088.) Further, “[t]he court must, in every stage of an action, disregard any error, improper ruling, instruction, or defect, in the pleadings or proceedings which, in the opinion of said court, does not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” (CCP § 475.) Trial on the writ petition has not been set.  Petitioner appears to be in receipt of the respondents’ answers. (See Pet. Ex Parte Application to Calendar and Consolidate Motion to Strike Respondents’ Answers and Opposition, filed 10/21/24.)  Proceeding with respondents having a fair opportunity to be heard, including setting a briefing schedule during the Trial Setting Conference, would not substantially affect the parties’ substantial rights.  Indeed, the opposite would be true in that allowing petitioner to “proceed without opposition” in this matter—notwithstanding respondents having answered and appeared—would certainly trample upon respondents’ substantial rights.

The motion is DENIED.