Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC01733, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC01733     Hearing Date: September 28, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO DISMISS

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Caviar Mickens

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO DISMISS &

APPLICATION FOR ORDER OF APPEARANCE IN THE ACTION

AGAINST DEFENDANT RONALD’S AUDTO BODYSHOP

(CCP § 581)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Caviar Mickens’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant City of Los Angeles, erroneously sued as Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, is PLACED OFF CALENDAR as MOOT.

Plaintiff’s Application for Order of Appearance in the Action against Defendant Ronald’s Auto Bodyshop is DENIED.

SERVICE: 

[   ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 NO

[   ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 NO

[   ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     NO

OPPOSITION:          N/A.                                                                [   ] Late                      [   ] None

REPLY:                     N/A.                                                                [   ] Late                      [   ] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On March 1, 2021, Plaintiff Caviar Mickens (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint alleging false imprisonment, assault, abuse of process, harassment, stalking, sexual harassment, malicious prosecution, and government tort liability causes of action against Defendants Ronald’s Auto Bodyshop (“Body Shop”) and City of Los Angeles, erroneously sued as Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office (“LA City”).  Only the first, seventh, and eighth causes of action were alleged against Defendant LA City.  (See Compl.)

Defendant LA City filed a Demurrer to the Complaint on April 7, 2021, which the Court sustained with 20 days’ leave to amend as to the first and eight causes of action and sustained without leave to amend as to the seventh cause of action.  (5-20-21 Minute Order.)  Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint.

On June 22, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Request to Dismiss Complaint without prejudice as to “Other: Cause of Actions.”  (6-22-21 Request for Dismissal.)  The Court entered dismissal on the same day as requested.  (Ibid.)

On June 25, 2021, Plaintiff filed an Ex-Parte Motion to Dismiss Defendant City Attorney’s Office.  On October 12, 2021, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion because Plaintiff had failed to serve Defendants.  (10-12-21 Minute Order.)  However, the Court on its own motion, struck Plaintiff’s Complaint as to Defendant LA City.  (Ibid.)

On May 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice to Court Giving Unanswered Defendant (Ronald Auto Body Shop) To Complaint Notice of Filed Suit and Pendency of Action, which also contained a nearly blank Proof of Service form and a signed statement by Plaintiff that he served the summons and complaint on Defendant Ronald’s Body Shop.

On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Dismiss Defendant Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office from Complaint.

On June 24, 2022, Plaintiff filed an Application for Order of Appearance.

On August 23, 2022, the Court continued the hearings on the Motion to Dismiss and Application for Order of Appearance to September 28, 2022.  (8-23-22 Minute Order.)

II.              Legal Standard & Discussion

On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Dismiss Defendant Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office from Complaint.  On October 12, 2021, the Court on its own motion, had struck Plaintiff’s Complaint as to Defendant LA City, erroneously sued as Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office.  (10-12-22 Minute Order.)  Thus, this Motion is MOOT and PLACED OFF CALENDAR.

Plaintiff also filed a separate “Application for Order of Appearance in the Action Against Ronald’s Auto Bodyshop” in which he requests that the Court order Defendant Ronald’s Auto Bodyshop (“RAB”) to appear and respond to the Complaint in this action. Plaintiff states that he served Defendant RAB on May 10, 2022 by U.S. Mail and again on May 21, 2021 by process server.  (Application, Decl. ¶¶ 4).  Defendant RAB did not answer or respond to Plaintiff’s summons and complaint.  Plaintiff, however, has not filed Proof of Service with the Court showing that Defendant RAB was properly served. Accordingly, the Court cannot grant relief.

III.            Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Caviar Mickens’s Motion to Dismiss Defendant City of Los Angeles, erroneously sued as Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, is PLACED OFF CALENDAR as MOOT.

Plaintiff’s Application for Order of Appearance in the Action against Defendant Ronald’s Auto Bodyshop is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.