Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 20TRCV00564, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20TRCV00564    Hearing Date: March 17, 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 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 February 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed a petition for review under federal constitution and due process rights for the orders dated February 10, 2023 (including under the 1^st, 4^th, 5^th, 12^th, and 14^th amendments). 

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff requests that the Court review and provide her relief from: (1) the unsigned tentative order dated February 10, 2023, which was “allegedly” entered into effect on February 13, 2023; (2) the “relaxed” CCP §§ 585(b), 585(c), 989, etc., which is in practice by the Superior Court of California and allows non-operative Defendants to file two-year late responses to the SAC; and (3) the “structural” errors caused by constitutional deprivation affecting the framework within which the trial court proceeds. 

            On February 10, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default judgment against Defendants Department of Housing and Community Development, Richard Weinart, Kim Borden, and Edwin Galindo.  In the Court’s written order, it amply addressed Plaintiff’s motion, stating that the Court could not enter the default judgments of these Defendants because, as an initial matter, default had not been entered against them.  In addition, the Court found that Defendants’ delay in answering was justified because Plaintiff had filed multiple amended complaints and had appealed multiple orders, which stayed the case.  In the Court’s February 10, 2023 order, the Court clarified that the stay would be lifted as against these Defendants and ordered them to file a responsive pleading within 20 days of notice of the order.

            If Plaintiff had issue with the Court’s February 10, 2023 order, Plaintiff should have filed a motion for reconsideration.  Instead, Plaintiff has filed this motion for review under the federal constitution and due process rights.  She has not cited any legal authority showing upon what legal basis the Court should “review” and provide Plaintiff relief from this order.  (The Court notes that even if Plaintiff had filed a motion for reconsideration, she has not provided the Court with any new or different facts, circumstances, or law.) 

Further, Plaintiff’s request that this Court vacate, stop, or put aside the Supreme Court’s practices regarding the CCP is an improper request for this Court.  In addition, Plaintiff’s arguments that the statutory CCP sections are too lax or that the infrastructure of the California Superior Court system is flawed is not a request or argument upon which the Court can provide Plaintiff with relief. 

Accordingly, the motion is denied. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Plaintiff’s petition for review under federal constitution and due process rights for the orders dated February 10, 2023 is denied.

Plaintiff shall provide notice of this order.