Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 20TRCV00564, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Counsel who wish to submit on the tentative ruling may do so by emailing BURDeptB@lacourt.org

PLEASE WRITE THE CASE NUMBER AND PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY ONLY SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTY YOU REPRESENT.  YOU MAY NOT SUBMIT ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY.Counsel are directed to cc all other counsel if you are submitting on the tentative ruling.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED CLARIFICATION ON THE TENTATIVE, YOU MUST APPEAR AND ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS TO THE COURT.

IF BOTH SIDES SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE RULING, THE TENTATIVE RULING THEN BECOMES THE ORDER OF THE COURT ON THE MOTION DATE AND NO APPEARANCES ARE NECESSARY.

THERE WILL BE NO RESPONSES TO ANY INQUIRIES SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SITE.

THANK YOU!

Case Number: 20TRCV00564    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Plaintiff Dr. Nira Woods (“Plaintiff”, a self-represented litigant) alleges she is the lessee of private land identified as Unit 68 within Skyline Mobile Park (“Park”) located at 2550 PCH, Torrance, CA 90505.  (SAC at p.3.)  She alleges that from 2019 to 2021, Defendants engaged in willful acts in the Park, including upgrading their “Hazardous Surveillance System” in the Park to include multiple, high-level intensity, hazardous pulsed laser/microwave/infrared radiation sources.  (Id., ¶9.)  She also alleges that Defendants engaged in video recording and sharing those videos over the internet.  (Id.)  Plaintiff alleges other various acts that Defendants engaged in, including making false representations to Plaintiff, dumping large amounts of debrisfrom large cactuses, physically assaulting and battering her, etc. 

            On July 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed the second amended complaint (“SAC”) for: (1) "Injunction/Petition/A demand for judgment for relief to which the Plaintiff claims to be entitled under LAW"; (2) "Invasion/violation of freedom to practice Religion; Privacy; hate crimes; false imprisonment; endangerment; Repeated often”; (3) "Fraud(s) of: Actual Fraud, Actionable Fraud, Constructive Fraud, and or Actual Malice to Plaintiff”; and (4) “Violation/infringe of Plaintiff’s Lease Agreement Dated 04/01/2003.” 

B.     Stay

On March 21, 2022, the Court stayed the case in its entirety. 

On April 22, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff’s motion for stay.  The Court stated:

The matters pending in this Court are stayed pursuant to CCP § 916(a), such that “the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected thereby, including enforcement of the judgment or order.”  However, the motion is denied in part pursuant to section 916(a), such that “the trial court may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.”  Whether a matter or motion will be stayed will be determined on an item-by-item basis.  A blanket stay to the entirety of the case will not be imposed.

(4/22/22 Order at p.3.) 

C.     Motion on Calendar

On October 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave/request for entry of default order and judgment regarding Defendants: (1) Department of Housing and Community Development; (2) Richard Weinert; (3) Kim Borden; and (4) Edwin G. Galindo. 

On January 26, 2023, Defendants Department of Housing and Community Development, Richard Weinart, Kim Borden, and Edwin Galindo (“Defendants”) filed an opposition brief.

On January 30, 2023, Plaintiff filed reply papers.

OBJECTIONS

            With the reply papers, Plaintiff submitted objections to Defendants 1-4’s opposition brief.  The objections to the opposition brief are overruled.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff requests that default be entered against Defendants pursuant to CCP §§ 585(b), 585(c), 989, etc. and under the Federal Constitution and Due Process Rights, arguing that they were served with the summons and complaint and failed to answer in over 2 years.  Plaintiff argues that Defendants were served with the summons and complaint on August 21, 2020, but they did not appear in this action or file an answer. 

            In opposition, Defendants argue that this action is stayed and thus Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally improper.  While the matter has been stayed, the Court also stated that the matter was stayed as to only the matters embraced by the appeal and that whether a matter or motion will be stayed will be determined on a case-by-case basis.  The Court notes that none of the prior matters in this action (including the attorney’s fees motion, demurrers, and discovery motions) involved the opposing Defendants.  As such, the Court will consider the merits of Plaintiff’s motion.

            Next, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s request for a default judgment against Defendants is improper because Plaintiff has not obtained the default of each of these Defendants.  The Court has reviewed its docket, the case history, and the parties’ status.  The defaults of Department of Housing and Community Development, Richard Weinart, Kim Borden, and Edwin Galindo have not been entered.  As such, the request for entry of default judgment is premature.

            Defendants also argue that before a default judgment can be entered against them, Plaintiff would be required to serve on them a statement of damages pursuant to CCP § 425.11.  They argue that Plaintiff has not served this document on them.  In the reply brief, Plaintiff states that she provided a statement of damages on pages 53 and 54 of her complaint.  However, a review of the document shows that it is not in the correct form or provide an accurate description of what Plaintiff is seeking (see e.g., CIV-050) and it does not specify the amount of general damages and special damages; rather, the complaint’s statement of damages only generally states that Plaintiff is seeking general and special damages according to proof and $10 million on each cause of action in the complaint.  

Finally, Defendants argue that they are represented by counsel and have appeared several times in this action.  They acknowledge that while they did not file a responsive pleading yet, they did not do so because Plaintiff kept amending her complaint and filing notices of appeal (November 19, 2021, December 17, 2021, February 1, 2022, and March 30, 2022).  Defendants state that once the stay has been lifted, they will file a responsive pleading.  (Opp. at p.6.) 

            The Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment against Defendants Department of Housing and Community Development, Richard Weinart, Kim Borden, and Edwin Galindo.  As noted above, the defaults of these Defendants have not yet been entered, such that entering a default judgment against these Defendants would be procedurally improper and premature.  Further, the case has been stayed as a result of Plaintiff’s multiple appeals, such that it was reasonable for Defendants to not yet file a responsive pleading. 

            While it has been reasonable for these Defendants to postpone filing a responsive pleading in light of the state of the pleadings and the appeals, the Court will order Defendants to file a responsive pleading.  The matters on appeal do not involve these Defendants and the filing of the responsive pleading will prevent any further delay on this case as to these Defendants. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment against Defendants Department of Housing and Community Development, Richard Weinart, Kim Borden, and Edwin Galindo is denied. 

Defendants Department of Housing and Community Development, Richard Weinart, Kim Borden, and Edwin Galindo are ordered to file a responsive pleading within 20 days of notice of this order.

Defendants shall provide notice of this order.