Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 20TRCV00564, Date: 2023-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20TRCV00564    Hearing Date: February 24, 2023    Dept: NCB

 

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

 

 

dr. nira woods,

                        Plaintiff,

            v.

 

department of housing and community development, et al.,

 

                        Defendants.

 

  Case No.:  20TRCV00564

 

  Hearing Date:  February 24, 2023

 

 [TENTATIVE] order RE:

motion for leave/request for order reinstating back to the lower case the dismissed without prejudice defendant 6 – the management of skyline mobile park

 

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 debris from 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 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to reinstate the “lower case” as to Defendant 6, The Management of Skyline Mobile Park (“Park”), who was dismissed without prejudice.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff requests that the Court reinstate the action as to Defendant 6, The Management of Skyline Mobile Park.  She argues that on September 4, 2020, the Sheriff served Park with the summons and complaint and that Park failed to file an answer within 30 days.

            The purported service on September 4, 2020 of the summons and complaint does not have any effect on Park at this time since Park was dismissed from the action by Plaintiff’s request.  (The Court does not comment on whether service effectuated by the Sheriff was proper.) 

Pursuant to the oral request of Plaintiff on July 27, 2021, Kim Borden, Park, Janice Torres, and Renee Baldwin were dismissed from Plaintiff’s February 16, 2021 FAC without prejudice.  Since the dismissal of Park was entered, it is no longer in the case and has no legal obligation to file a responsive pleading. 

            The Court also notes that Plaintiff has not provided the Court with any legal citation or arguments to set aside the dismissal.  (The Court also notes that any such motion would be untimely as the dismissal was entered nearly 2 years ago.)

            For these reasons, the motion is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s motion for leave/request for order reinstating back to the lower case the dismissed without prejudice Defendant 6 – The Management of Skyline Mobile Park is denied.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.