Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 23STCV27428, Date: 2023-11-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV27428 Hearing Date: November 20, 2023 Dept: 68
|
Quincy Johnson, Plaintiff,
v. Los Angeles Unified School District, Defendant. |
Case No.: 23STCV27428 ORDER DENYING EX PARTE
APPLICATION FILED NOVEMBER 13, 2023 Hearing Date: Nov. 20,
2023 |
Plaintiff Quincy
Johnson filed an ex parte application
on November 13, 2023. In it he states
that he requests an order that “Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District
to be prepared to appear at Stanley Mosk Courthouse of the Los Angeles Superior
Court to comply with injunctive demands requested and ordered by Hon. Judge Stern
on 11 month, 20 day, 2023 year…” The
filing discloses no injunctive relief purportedly being sought.[1]
Plaintiff filed his
Complaint for Injunctive Relief on November 8, 2023. (A review of the Complaint reveals no basis
for injunctive relief.) At the present
time, there is no filed proof of service showing that Los Angeles Unified
School District has ever been served with this lawsuit.
On November 8, 2023
Plaintiff filed his first Request for and Notice of ex parte order of
Injunctive Relief. It was set for
hearing on November 13, 2023. It was
identical to the Application filed November 13, 2023. There was no evidence that Los Angeles
Unified School District had been properly notified of the ex parte Application. Nor was there any basis for injunctive relief
shown by the filing. The Court denied
the November 8, 2023 request for injunctive relief.
Procedure
Ex parte Application
are governed by California Rules of Court 3.1201- 3.1207. Plaintiff must comply with those Rules of
Court in every respect, including the notice provisions. He did not do so in connection with the
November 8, 2023 Application, nor has he done so with respect to the November
13, 2023 filing.
Merits
The Court shall not
discuss all of the defects in the Plaintiff’s ex parte Application. In summary, Plaintiffs’ submission does not
show any basis for the Court to issue any injunctive relief.
ORDER
1.
The
ex parte Application is DENIED both
on procedural grounds and on the merits of the request.
2.
The
Clerk of the Court shall give notice of the Order to all parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 20, 2023 _______________________________
Douglas
W. Stern
Judge of the Superior Court
[1] / “It has been previously declared fact
the Los Angeles Unified School District has jeopardized the life of the
Plaintiff by ignoring standards of safety and conduct befitting a school
district causing grief and bodily harm on more than one occasion, prompting the
Plaintiff to risk his own life to prevent injury of emotional distress,
physical attack from occurring to anyone else by inquiring online, proving
allegations of a threat to the safety of our nation due to the Defendant's
natural organization. Requiring orders,
the Los Angeles Unified School District must face the allegations, and orders
that the entirety of Defendant's evidentiary emails be provided at once to the
Court for the benefit of understanding there are self-admitted provocateurs of
sabotage previously fleet from capture for murder at- large due to
mismanagement of investigative media, lack of coordination between departments,
failure to consent with parents…” This Plaintiff’s
articulation sets forth no basis for an injunction.