Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV00462, Date: 2023-09-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23BBCV00462 Hearing Date: September 8, 2023 Dept: NCB
North
Central District
|
raymond bazell, Plaintiff, v. vision parking
services, inc., et al., Defendants. |
Case
No.: 23BbCV00462 Hearing
Date: September 8, 2023 [TENTATIVE]
order RE: demurrer |
BACKGROUND
A. Allegations
Plaintiff
Raymond Bazell (“Plaintiff”) is a self-represented litigant. He filed the complaint on February 28, 2023,
alleging causes of action for: (1) conversion; (2) negligence; (3) obstruction
of justice; (4) obstruction of justice; (5) negligent supervision of employee;
and (6) elder abuse.
Plaintiff
alleges that he left $9,000 in an envelope in his car at the time he went to
Smoke House and gave his car over to a valet service employee Defendant Moses
Santos. The valet service was operated
by Defendants Vision Parking Services, Inc. and Omar Khatab. Plaintiff alleges that upon returning to his
car, the envelope was missing. Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant Sasha A. Mirzayans agreed to release the surveillance video
of the incident to Plaintiff, but he was not provided a copy of the video.
B. Demurrer
on Calendar and Relevant Background
On
March 30, 2023, Plaintiff dismissed the action with prejudice.
On April 13,
2023, Defendant Sasha A. Mirzayans filed a demurrer to the complaint.
On April 18,
2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice re: Dismissal, stating that the case was
dismissed.
On April 19,
2023, Plaintiff filed a Response to Mirzayans’ demurrer and a request for $500
in sanctions, arguing that the matter was dismissed, such that the Court lacks
jurisdiction over this matter, and thus he is entitled to sanctions pursuant to
CCP § 128.5 for Defendant’s frivolous motion.
DISCUSSION
In
light of Plaintiff’s dismissal of this action, Mirzayans’ demurrer to the
complaint is moot.
The Court denies Plaintiff’s request
for sanctions pursuant to CCP § 128.5.
The dismissal was entered on March 30, 2023 and was served on Plaintiff
only on March 30, 2023. Plaintiff
filed the Notice re: Dismissal on April 18, 2023, showing that he served the
dismissal document on Mirzayans’ counsel by mail on April 6, 2023. Accounting for 5 days of mailing, it is
likely that Mirzayans’ counsel received the dismissal notice on April 11,
2023. The demurrer was then filed on
April 13, 2023. Thus, Mirzayans did not
have notice of the dismissal a week before filing the demurrer (as argued by
Plaintiff in his Response papers), but rather 2 days. While Mirzayans should have had notice prior
to filing the demurrer, it may have been an inadvertent error for Mirzayans to
file the demurrer after dismissal was entered. However, the Court will not
impose sanctions for such a harmless error.
Further, the procedure pursuant to CCP § 128.5 to request sanctions was
not properly followed. As such, Plaintiff’s
request for sanctions in his response papers is denied.
CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
Defendant
Sasha A. Mirzayans’ demurrer to the complaint is taken off-calendar as moot in
light of the dismissal of this action.
Defendant
shall
give notice of this order.