Judge David S. Cunningham, Case Number: JCCP5052, Date: 2024-05-13 Tentative Ruling

JLI’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Bruce Wall’s claims with prejudice is granted.

This is a coordinated action. The complaints allege that JLI manufactured and marketed defective and harmful e-cigarettes, targeting children.

On April 2, 2024, JLI’s motion to dismiss Bruce Wall’s claims with prejudice for failure to comply with the settlement procedures came on for hearing. Wall did not file opposition papers, but he did post a declaration and addendum on Case Anywhere. The Court found the declaration and addendum defective and continued the matter to give Wall additional time to hire an attorney and/or to file and serve corrected versions and an opposition brief.

JLI contends the motion to dismiss should be granted because (1) “Mr. Wall is a Settling Plaintiff under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, (2) his Release extinguished all claims – past and future – against JLI and the Settling Defendants,” and (3) he “already received an allocation – including an [Extraordinary Injury Fund] allocation – for his claims against JLI and Settling Defendants, which he will receive from [the settlement administrator] upon dismissal of his claims with prejudice.” (3/12/24 Motion to Dismiss, p. 7.)

* He failed to file a supplemental opposition brief by the April 29^th deadline.

* As noted last time, Wall’s initial declaration and addendum are defective and cannot be considered because:

– There is no proof of service showing that Wall served the documents on JLI and the Settling Defendants.

– The declaration fails to state where it was executed and that it was made under penalty of perjury under California law. (See 3/19/24 Wall Decl., p. 1.)[1]

– The addendum is unsigned, also fails to state where it was executed, and also fails to state that it was made under penalty of perjury under California law. (See 3/20/24 Wall Addendum, p. 1.)[2]

* The exhibits emailed by Wall to JLI on April 11^th and 12^th are also defective and cannot be considered because:

– Wall failed to file the exhibits himself (they are attached to a courtesy notice filed by JLI on April 12^th).

– The exhibits, which consist of photographs of a one-page opposition dated April 12^th, Wall’s defective initial declaration, and a notarized statement dated March 19^th, are not true and correct copies of the actual documents. (See 4/12/24 Danninger Aff., Ex. A, pp. 1-3.)

– There is no statement from Wall authenticating the exhibits, verifying them, or showing that any of them were executed under penalty of perjury under California law.

* The Court already provided Wall extra time to secure counsel and/or to file and serve corrected versions of his documents and an opposition brief.

* JLI’s moving brief demonstrates Wall’s noncompliance with the settlement procedures. (See 3/12/24 Motion to Dismiss, pp. 3-10.)[3]

[1] The declaration states:

I Bruce Wall declare under penalty of perjury that I did not sign print or date the legal release of Juul labs inc. and that the release they produced is a fabrication.

(3/19/24 Wall Decl., p. 1.)

[2] The addendum states:

Steve Davis misrepresented me. I asked Tor Hoerman to replace him as my Attorney and they refused. I was and am forced to represent myself Pro Se because no other Attorney that I have made contact with would take my case.

As Pro Se not one piece of legal information was added or sent to my contacts and I have been left in the dark until I was sent an email that read Jull Labs Product Case 21stcv1976 motion to dismiss. It contained the motion and a separate document that portrayed it coming directly from the Judge himself. I have produced that document.

The settlement does not reach economic damages. Damages far exceed the offer.

The settlement does not satisfy non economic damages. Damages exceed the offer.

The settlement does not reach punitive damages for the reckless conduct and complete disregard for my safety and their conscious awareness of their lies and wrong doing.

I humbly ask this court to deny this motion to dismiss.

I ask the court to let me opt out of the settlement and attempt to litigate as Pro Se to argue damages that will make me whole.

(3/20/24 Wall Addendum, p. 1.)

[3] Wall remains free to pursue whatever remedies might still be available to him – e.g., filing a motion for relief. On the instant record, though, granting JLI’s motion is warranted.