Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 22STCV31531, Date: 2024-12-06 Tentative Ruling

REQUESTING ORAL ARGUMENT PER CRC 3.1308

The Court will attempt to post all Tentative Rulings at least the day prior to the hearing by 3:00 p.m.; however, the Court does not post Tentative Rulings for all matters.  

The Court will indicate in the Tentative Ruling whether the Court is requesting oral argument.  For cases where the Court is not requesting argument, then the Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) where the Court requests notice of intent to appear.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, a party seeking argument should notify "all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue."  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is requested.   

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

Notice of the ruling must be served as indicated in the tentative.  Remote appearances are permitted for all law and motion unless otherwise indicated by the Court.  

Case Number: 22STCV31531    Hearing Date: December 6, 2024    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO DISMISS

NOTICE:

The Court is not requesting oral argument on this matter.  The Court is guided by California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) whereby notice of intent to appear is requested.  Unless the Court directs argument in the Tentative Ruling, no argument is requested and any party seeking argument should notify all other parties and the court by 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing of the party’s intention to appear and argue.  The tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if no argument is received.  

Notice may be given either by email at BurDeptA@LACourt.org or by telephone at (818) 260-8412.

ALLEGATIONS: 

Rhonda Koch-Strauss (Plaintiff) brings this action against Vahe Avedian, Susanna Avedian, and Ghevon Avedian (Defendants). Plaintiff and Defendants are neighbors, and this suit arises from a June 17, 2022 altercation between them. Plaintiff alleges Defendants caused her unlawful arrest by the Crescenta Valley Sheriff’s deputies.  Plaintiff asserts the arrest occurred after plaintiff drove to Defendants’ house and asked them to stop playing music. Plaintiff represents herself in this action. The Complaint states causes of action for (1) Wrongful Imprisonment, (2) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, (3) Malicious Prosecution, and (4) Slander.

On May 17, 2024, the Court granted a motion by Defendants to quash the service of the subpoenas upon each of them. The Court found the initial proofs of service had been struck as deficient and that Plaintiff’s subsequent proofs of service suffered the same defects.

Defendants now move to dismiss this action with prejudice on grounds that Plaintiff has failed to properly serve them within two years of the Complaint being filed. Plaintiff has filed no opposition to this motion. Pursuant to C.R.C. Rule 8.54(c), a failure to oppose a motion may be deemed consent to its being granted.

ANALYSIS: 

I.                    LEGAL STANDARD 

The court on its own motion or on motion of the defendant may dismiss an action under C.C.P. §§ 583.410-583.430 for delay in prosecution if the action has not been brought to trial or conditionally settled within two years after the action was commenced against the defendant. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1340 (a).)

In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court may consider the court file, diligence in seeking effective service of process, the extent to which parties engaged in any settlement negotiations, diligence in pursuing discovery, nature and complexity of the case, pendency of other litigation based on common facts, nature of any extensions of time or other delay, condition of the court's calendar, whether the interests of justice are best served by dismissal, and any other facts or circumstances relevant to fair determination. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1342(e).)

"In order to avoid a dismissal for delay in prosecution, the plaintiff must show a reasonable excuse for such delay; once that showing is made, the trial court must consider all pertinent factors including those under rule [3.1432] and any prejudice to the defendant from the delay, before deciding whether to dismiss. [Citations.] However, where there has been a protracted and unexplained delay in prosecution, the defendant need not make an affirmative showing of prejudice. Prejudice is inferred from the delay itself. [Citation.]" (Wagner v. Rios (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 608, 611-12.)

II.                 MERITS

The Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to dismissal without prejudice. Plaintiff’s action was filed September 27, 2022 and service has yet to be effectuated. The Court struggles to find good cause for the Plaintiff’s failure to properly serve the Defendants’ given Plaintiff has not opposed this motion.   As a result, she has not carried her burden to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the delay in prosecution. Nor can any reasonable excuse be gleaned from any previous filing or appearance. Plaintiff’s failure to rectify the defects in her initial service and her failure to respond to Defendants’ motions to quash indicate to this Court that Plaintiff has abandoned this action.  However, the Court is aware that Plaintiff is self-represented and may have had reason  for failing to oppose the motion.  As such, a dismissal without prejudice would not be in the interest of justice; nonetheless a dismissal without prejudice would be appropriate.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint is GRANTED without prejudice.  

--- 

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records. 

ORDER 

Vahe Avedian, Susanna Avedian, and Ghevon Avedian’s Motion to Dismiss came on regularly for hearing on December 6, 2024, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows: 

THE MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT IS GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

CLERK TO GIVE TO NOTICE.  

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE:  December 6, 2024                            _______________________________ 

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge 

Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles