Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 21STCV12073, Date: 2025-05-30 Tentative Ruling

        All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email.  Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line.  In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.


            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.    


            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the  matter off calendar.
                          
            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.   
 

Case Number: 21STCV12073    Hearing Date: May 30, 2025    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Carlos Mendez Mejia’s unopposed motion to represent himself is denied as moot. 

Defendant Carlos Mendez Mejia (“Mejia”) (“Defendant”) moves unopposed to represent himself in lieu of his attorney of record, Anyanwu A. Anyanwu.[1]  (Notice Disqualify, pgs. 1-2.)

Background

On October 12, 2023, after this action came on for a jury trial, judgment was entered in this matter in favor of Plaintiff Elizabeth Escobar (“Escobar”) (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant Mejia doing business as Los Cipotes Salvadorean Grill aka Los Cipotes Restaurant Bakery or Los Cipotes Restaurant and Bakery.

On May 13, 2024, this Court entered an Amended Judgment.

On December 9, 2024, the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur dismissing Defendant’s appeal on the basis that Defendant is in default pursuant to CRC, Rule 8.140(b).

Defendant filed the instant motion on December 5, 2024.  As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

           Discussion

After an appeal is finally decided, whether by the supreme court or the court of appeal without supreme court review, the case is transferred back to the trial court.  The transfer is accomplished by the appellate court’s issuance of a document called a “remittitur.”  (In re Anna S. (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1500.)

The remittitur notifies the trial court that the appellate court judgment is final and specifies any entitlement to recovery of costs on appeal. It is accompanied by a filed-endorsed copy of the appellate court’s opinion or order. (C.C.P. §§43, 912; CRC, Rules 8.272(b)(1)(B), (2)(B), 8.540(b)(2); see Schwartz v. Schwartz (1969) 268 Cal.App.2d 685, 690; Noel v. Smith (1905) 2 Cal.App. 158, 161-162.)

A remittitur cannot issue until the appellate court’s decision becomes final as to that court, and, until the remittitur issues, the trial court cannot act on the appellate court’s decision.  (In re Anna S., 180 Cal.App.4th at pg. 1500.)

Issuance of a remittitur terminates the appellate court’s jurisdiction over the case and revests jurisdiction in the trial court.  (Snukal v. Flightways Manufacturing, Inc. (2000) 23 Cal.4th 754, 774 n.5; Riley v. Superior Court (1957) 49 Cal.2d 305, 310; Bryan v. Bank of America (2001) 86 Cal.App.4th 185, 190.)

The terms of the remittitur define, and thus can limit, the trial court’s jurisdiction to act on remand.  (In re Anna S., 180 Cal.App.4th at pg. 1499 [stating remittitur “defines the scope of the jurisdiction of the court to which the matter is returned”]; People v. Dutra (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1366 [“the trial court is revested with jurisdiction of the case, but only to carry out the judgment as ordered by the appellate court”]; id. at pg. 1367 [stating the appellate court’s order, as stated in the remittitur, “is decisive of the character of the judgment to which the appellant is entitled.”].)

Here, the remittitur issued by the Court of Appeal states that Defendant’s appeal is dismissed.  (12/9/24 Remittitur.)  The remittitur offers no other instructions to this Court and does not alter the amended judgment entered in this matter.  Therefore, there is nothing left in this matter for Defendant to represent himself on before this Court, and Defendant’s motion is moot.[2]

           Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is denied as moot.

Conclusion

Defendant’s unopposed motion is denied as moot.

Moving Party to give notice.

Dated:  May _____, 2025