Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 22BBCP00135, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22BBCP00135    Hearing Date: May 19, 2023    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

Petitioner Vicki Corona (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Permanent Injunction against Deprivation of Rights Unalienable under Color of Law and Color of Process on April 8, 2022 against Respondents City of Los Angeles (“City”), LAPD/North Hollywood Division Officers J. DeLong – Serial #36713, Dominguez – Serial # 43278, Stratton – serial # 36962, and Cerda – Serial # 41521.

Petitioner alleges that Respondents each began harassing and ticketing Petitioner’s “conveyance” (or van), which she alleges is not a motor vehicle and therefore no registration is required for a non-commercial vehicle.  She seeks a permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendants’ policies and practices in ticketing Petitioner’s private property (i.e., car) for unconstitutional reasons; an order for an exemption sticker or placard to serve as official notice to law enforcement of Petitioner’s exemption from DMV’s jurisdiction; an order to expunge all Petitioner’s non-registration tickets; an order that the officers enroll in mandatory classes on civics/constitution/common law; and that City issue directives to all law enforcement personnel, outsources parking enforcement, and policy academy instructors to “seriously study the Law” concerning the right of locomotion without registration for non-commercial cars. 

On April 3, 2023, Petitioner submitted an amended petition.  The amended petition has been “received” but has not been filed with the Court. 

B.     Relevant Background

On July 7, 2022, “Specially Appearing” Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”), Los Angeles Police Officer James DeLong (“Officer DeLong”), Los Angeles Police Officer Adrian Dominguez (“Officer Dominguez”), Los Angeles Police Officer Luis Cerda (“Officer Cerda”), and Los Angeles Police Officer Mark Stratton (“Officer Stratton”) filed an opposition brief. 

On July 22, 2022, the hearing on the petition for permanent injunction came for hearing.  The Court denied the petition. 

On July 25, 2022, the Court entered the Order of Dismissal of Verified Petition for Permanent Injunction.  The Court dismissed with prejudice the Petition as to Respondents the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Police Officers James DeLong, Adrian Dominguez, Luis Cerda and Mark Stratton.  The Court found that Petitioner shall take nothing as against Respondents. 

On August 30, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion to set aside and vacate the Court’s judgment and a motion to strike Defendant’s Response to Petitioner’s Petition.  On November 4, 2022, the Court denied Petitioner’s motion on procedural and substantive grounds.

C.     Motion on Calendar

On December 14, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to add additional respondents to the petition.  On December 28, 2022, Petitioner filed a supplement to the motion.

On May 4, 2023, City of Los Angeles (specially appearing) filed an opposition to the motion.

DISCUSSION

Petitioner moves to add additional respondents to her petition.  Specifically, she seeks to include Los Angeles Police Officers Abernimo (Serial #39667) and Gonzalez (Serial #42101) for their ticketing of Petitioner’s conveyance.  In her supplemental papers, she seeks to add Los Angeles Police Officer Suarez (Serial #43066).

The motion is denied for several reasons.

First, the motion is procedurally improper.  The petition was disposed of following the Court’s July 22, 2022 hearing wherein the Court dismissed the petition with prejudice as to the named Respondents to the initial petition.  Though Petitioner attempted to set aside the dismissal, the Court denied that motion.  As such, the action remains dismissed.  “The dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit deprived the superior court of subject matter jurisdiction. Absent a pending lawsuit, a court cannot issue judgments or orders.” (Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1007.)  As Petitioner has not successfully vacated the dismissal entered in this petition action, Petitioner’s motion to name additional respondents to the petition (filed on December 14, 2022 after dismissal was entered) is improper.  Thus, the motion is denied for procedural reasons.

Second, even if the Court were to consider her motion, the Court would deny the motion on substantive grounds as well.  The motion lacks any citation to legal authority for her request to add new respondents to this already-dismissed action.  Her moving papers only includes her notice of motion and attached parking violation tickets.  In her supplemental papers, she argues that “supplements” are favored and that there was a grace period for traffic and non-infraction tickets.  Her papers do not provide any basis to vacate any of the Court’s prior orders and to name new parties to this action.

For these reasons, the motion is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Petitioner Vicki Corona’s motion to add additional respondents to the petition is denied.  

Petitioner shall provide notice of this order.