Judge: David A. Rosen, Case: EC056411, Date: 2023-08-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: EC056411    Hearing Date: August 11, 2023    Dept: E

Hearing Date: 08/11/2023 – 8:30am
Case No. EC056411
Trial Date: N/A
Case Name: ED VALLEJO v. CAPITAL ONE N.A., et al.

TENTATIVE RULING

Moving Party:  Plaintiff, Ed Vallejo

Responding Party: No Opposition Submitted

Moving Papers: “Notice and Motion to Reopen Based on New Facts and Leave to File a Second Amended Verified Complaint for Equitable and Money Damages”; “Ex-Parte Request for a 90 day Extension of Time to Serve Defendants”

Opposition Papers: No Opposition

Reply: No Reply

Procedural
16/21 Day Lapse (CCP §12c and §1005(b): Unclear
Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, Rule 3.1300): No
Correct Address (CCP §1013, §1013a): Unclear

TENTATIVE RULING
Plaintiff’s “motion” is DENIED. Plaintiff filed a document that he titled in the caption as “Notice and Motion to Reopen Based on New Facts and Leave to File a Second Amended Verified Complaint for Equitable and Money Damages.” Despite the document having the aforementioned title, the document was simply a [proposed] Second Amended Complaint filed by the Plaintiff. Plaintiff cited no law or legal support, nor made any argument or explained any basis as to why this case meets the legal requirements for a case to be reopened. Plaintiff’s “motion” wasn’t even a motion. Further, Plaintiff did not present proof of service for either of the documents he filed. There is no proof that either of the documents was served on anyone, nor is the Court able to determine if this motion is timely under CCP 1005(b).

Further, this case was dismissed in 2013, which Dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeal in 2014. Thus, the Court has no jurisdiction. Finally, the motion is untimely if intended as a Motion for Reconsideration of prior ruling(s).  CCP, sec. 1008.