Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 23AHCV02049, Date: 2024-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV02049    Hearing Date: May 8, 2024    Dept: X

Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:     May 8, 2024                                        TRIAL DATE: N/A

CASE:                         JEROME VAUGHN vs MONROVIA POLICE DEPARTMENT

CASE NO.:                 23AHCV02049

MOTION TO ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT (VACATE DISMISSAL)

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Jerome Vaughn

RESPONDING PARTY:      None

SERVICE:                              POS says April 8, 2024, but no info about who was personally served

RELIEF REQUESTED

            Plaintiff seeks to reinstate this action, which was dismissed on November 16, 2023.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of Defendant allegedly injuring Plaintiff’s wrist.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate dismissal is DENIED.

DISCUSSION

On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff did not appear at the Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service, so the Court ordered the first amended complaint dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the order of dismissal.  The Court denied that motion on February 7, 2024 and explained to Plaintiff the legal basis for his tentative ruling.

On March 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Reply Memorandum Supporting Motion to Vacate and Set Aside Default and Default Judgement.”  At the April 8, 2024 hearing, the Court deemed it a motion pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).  The Court directed Plaintiff to provide proof of service to counsel for the Defendant before the next court date, and the Court provided the name and contact information for defense counsel.  The Court also ordered Plaintiff to file proof of service of the Amended Complaint prior to the next court date.

On April 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Proof of Service by personal service.  The form is almost completely blank.  Plaintiff does not identify what documents were served, upon whom they were served, where they were served, or when they were served.

Defendant’s lack of opposition to this motion further suggests that it was not served.

Because Plaintiff did not comply with the Court’s April 8, 2024 order, the motion to vacate dismissal is denied.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate dismissal is DENIED.

Dated:   May 8, 2024                                      ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court