Judge Malcolm Mackey, Case 21STCV25562 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 21STCV25562, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV25562 Hearing Date: February 2, 2023 Dept: 55

ALLEN v. THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES 21STCV25562

Hearing Date: 2/2/23, Dept. 55

#7: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

Notice: Okay

Opposition

MP: Plaintiff

RP: Defendant VISTA POINT, INC.

Defendant PACIFIC LIFE & ANNUITY SERVICES, INC.

Summary

On 7/13/21, Plaintiff RANDALL BERNARD ALLEN , a self-represented litigant, filed a Complaint.

On 8/24/21, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging that Pacific Life Insurance Company, acting as a subsidiary of the City of Los Angeles, failed to establish a special needs trust of structured annuity payments due monthly to Vista Points Inc., thereby creating financial difficulties for Plaintiff and his son.

The causes of action are:

1. 42 USC § 1983 – EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, DUE PROCESS.

2. 42 USC § 1983 - BREACH OF CONTRACT.

On 12/14/21, the Court sustained, without leave to amend, a similar demurrer of co-Defendant PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, based on the demurrer page numbers, and as unopposed.

MP Positions

Moving party requests an order granting summary judgment, as to the First Amended Complaint, on grounds including the following:

· Established policies and rights, afforded to other clients, were denied to Plaintiff, by Los Angeles City, without fair and impartial hearing[s], initiating the actions of plausible deniability.

· The practice to intentionally oppress African-Americans in the City of Los Angeles, by its own City Council members, provides more evidence of the Plaintiff's claims of unjust bias.

· Plaintiff is protected from discrimination([s] based on his race, religious practices, color, as well as his disability, as afforded pursuant to landmark cases like Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537(1896); Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483(1954); —and Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1(1967).

· Plaintiff was terminated from Social Security benefits, which is a requirement for a Special Needs Trust account pursuant to the Social Security Act, Section 1614(a)(3)(A), and 42 U.S.Code Section 1382c(a)(3)(A).

· Plaintiff qualified to establish his own Self-Settling First-Party Special Needs Trust Account, under The Special Needs Trust Fairness Act, as part of the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016.

· There were contractual agreements with each party, as Plaintiff was expressly identified within each contractual agreement with each separate entity. See Section 1, of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act of 1999.

· Pacific Life & Annuity Services Inc.(“PLASI"), and VISTA POINTS, INC.[Special Needs Trust Account Administrations], shall adhere to the contractual agreements, as obligator to Plaintiff as well as the Federal, and California governing statutes, as agreed. Those agreements were violated.

· The primary rights at issue in the two cases relevant to this appeal-- plaintiff's federal suit and the instant suit—is the right to be free from false and unreasonable detention; the right to be free from an unwarranted deprivation of freedom of movement.

· The settlement order in the initial federal case described plaintiff as being one of the class members who “were arrested based on a warrant who were not, in fact, the person for whom the warrant was issued, and were purportedly held without timely determination of whether s/he was the arrestee, even if [the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department] personnel were notified that the warrant was not for him or her.”

· Plaintiff's saga involved two alleged violations of his primary right: (1) his arrest and incarceration, and (2) his continued confinement past the time when he asserted he could and should have been released. Thus, plaintiff asserts that the federal case litigated a cause of action based on the county’s failure to timely determine whether the correct person was arrested (a failure to timely release inmates), whereas the instant case litigation a false arrest and resulting confinement which stemmed from the state’s wrongful issuance of parole holds.

· The Plaintiff's claims for relief are a direct reflection of the hardships and duress caused by contractual agreements not adhered. The issues dealt, caused tremendous stress and contributed to Plaintiff's medical complications, of an already existing and highly sensitive situation.

· Pacific Life & Annuity Services Inc.(“PLASI"), Vista Points Inc.[Special Needs Trust Account Administration], as well as The City of Los Angeles, failed to remedy the situation.

RP Positions

Opposing parties advocate a continuing stay, and motion striking, on bases including the following:

· Defendant Vista Point Inc. will oppose the motion for summary judgment after the appeal stay is lifted and a briefing schedule is set.

· It is unclear from Plaintiff’s notice whether the Motion for Summary Judgment is brought against PACIFIC LIFE & ANNUITY SERVICES, INC., but to the extent it is, given the prior judgment entered in its favor and the pending appeal, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is improper and should be stricken to the extent it is brought against it.

Tentative Ruling

The motion hearing is continued to 4/21/23 at 8:30 a.m., in Department 55.

There is a stay pending an appeal, as addressed in the 3/10/22, 7/22/22, 10/25/22 and 1/4/23 rulings.

Judicial notice of the Court of Appeal’s docket currently shows that the appeal was recently submitted for decision.

“[W]hether a matter is 'embraced' in or 'affected' by a judgment within the meaning of section 916 depends upon whether postjudgment trial court proceedings on the particular matter would have any impact on the 'effectiveness' of the appeal. If so, the proceedings are stayed….” Franklin & Franklin v. 7-Eleven Owners for Fair Franchising (2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 1168, 1173 (citing CCP §916). Accord Young v. Tri-City Healthcare Dist. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 35, 51 (“ ‘In determining whether a proceeding is embraced in or affected by the appeal, we must consider the appeal and its possible outcomes in relation to the proceeding and its possible results.’ ”); Henry M. Lee Law Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1383 (changing attorney fee award to make it payable to another would have no impact on the effectiveness of the appeal); City of Santa Monica v. Stewart (2005) 126 Cal. App. 4th 43, 79.