Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00876, Date: 2024-04-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00876    Hearing Date: April 17, 2024    Dept: C

ROMO v. SOTO, ET AL.

CASE NO.:  22NWCV00876

HEARING:  4/17/24 @ 10:30 A.M.

#6

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant in Pro Per Juan Soto’s motion to dismiss is DENIED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

This is a trademark infringement action. Defendant in Pro Per Juan Soto moves to dismiss the action. However, it is not clear on what grounds Soto moves to dismiss the action.   

The court may dismiss an action for delay in prosecution where service is not made within two years after the action is commenced against the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.420, subd. (a)(1).) In addition, an action shall be dismissed by the court on its own motion or on the motion of the defendant if the action is not brought to trial within five years. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.360.)

Separately, a motion to dismiss may be substituted for a demurrer as the first pleading. (Barragan v. Banco BCH (1986) 188 Cal.App.3d 283, 299.) If denied, it is treated as an overruled demurrer. (Ibid.)

Soto asserts that he has discovered facts to support this motion and Plaintiff’s allegations are unmeritorious and solely to harass him. But that is not the law. Further, a judge in a civil case is not "'obligated to seek out theories [a party] might have advanced, or to articulate … that which … [a party] has left unspoken.'"  (Mesecher v. County of San Diego (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1677, 1686.)

Thus, the motion is DENIED.