Judge: Deirdre Hill, Case: BC720119, Date: 2023-04-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC720119    Hearing Date: April 4, 2023    Dept: M

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. M

 

TITO A THOMAS,

 

 

 

Plaintiff,

 

Case No.:

 

 

BC720119

 

vs.

 

 

[Tentative] RULING

 

 

ARGOSY UNIVERSITY, et al.,

 

 

 

Defendants.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hearing Date:                         April 4, 2023

 

Moving Party:                         Plaintiff Tito A. Thomas

Responding Party:                  Receiver Mark Dottore

Motion for Summary Judgment

 

            The court considered the moving and response papers.

RULING

The motion for summary judgment is taken OFF CALENDAR as there is a stay in place.

BACKGROUND

On September 4, 2018, plaintiff Tito A. Thomas filed a complaint.

On October 26, 2018, plaintiff (self-represented filed a FAC against defendants Argosy University, Katheryn J. Virzi, and Mark Anthony Sarno for (1) sexual harassment, (2) retaliation, (3) sexual harassment, (4) failure to prevent sexual harassment, (5) retaliation in violation of public policy, (6) IIED, and (7) NIED.

On March 6, 2019, non-party Mark E. Dottore, Receiver, filed a notice of appointment of receiver, TRO, and stay of proceedings, stating that plaintiff is enjoined from proceeding further in this action until and unless it obtains leave of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio.

On March 7, 2019, at the Case Management Conference, the court noted that there is a notice of stay on file as to the corporate defendants; thus, the court stayed the case in its entirety.

On December 11, 2019, plaintiff filed a request for dismissal as to Kathryn J. Virzi and Mark Anthony Sarno.

On January 10, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff Tito A. Thomas requests summary judgment against defendants.

The court notes that plaintiff failed to file a separate statement or timely serve and file the motion 75 days before the hearing pursuant to CCP ยง 437c(a)(2).

In any event, in his response, non-party Receiver Mark Dottore points out that the motion violates the ongoing stay in this case and two related federal receivership proceedings.  Receiver Dottore also asserts that the motion is procedurally defective, as noted above.

As the case has been stayed, the motion violates the stay and is thus OFF CALENDAR.

The clerk is to give notice.