Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 23STCP00141, Date: 2023-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCP00141     Hearing Date: May 24, 2023    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      PETITION

MOVING PARTY:   Petitioner Ivan Parker, Jr.

RESP. PARTY:         None

PETITION

(None cited.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petition filed by Petitioner Ivan Parker, Jr. is DENIED without prejudice.

SERVICE:

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)    UNCLEAR

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                    UNCLEAR

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                      UNCLEAR

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of May 18, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of May 18, 2023.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background & Analysis

On January 18, 2023, Petitioner Ivan Parker, Jr. (“Petitioner”), in propria persona, filed the instant Petition against Respondents Defendant California Highway Patrol South (“Highway Patrol”) and Pepe’s Towing (“Pepe’s Towing”) (collectively “Respondents”).  The Court cannot ascertain what type of Petition has been filed.  However, Petitioner alleges that the California Highway Patrol reported his vehicle stolen “when having no authority to do so” and called Pepe’s Towing “to assist in the Theft, (Unlawful Impounding) of property.”  (Pet. p. 1.)  Respondent Pepe’s Towing has “refused to release property” despite “Documentation proving that they unlawfully refused to release property.”  (Ibid.)

On February 6, 2023, Petitioner filed Proof of Service indicating that the Summons was served on January 18, 2023, by personal service, but did not provide any information about the parties served.  (2-6-23 Proof of Service.)

The Court finds the instant Petition to be severely deficient.  It consists of a title page with barebone allegations without any citations to legal authority or the type of relief sought through the Petition.  The Court is not presented with any facts, legal authority, or evidence in order to determine whether Petitioner is entitled to the relief he seeks.

            The Court also finds that the Proof of Service is deficient in that the Court cannot assess whether the Petition and Notice of Petition were served and which parties were served.

            Accordingly, the instant Petition is DENIED without prejudice.