Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 19STCV31718, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV31718    Hearing Date: August 29, 2022    Dept: 26

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Chicuace Chicuace’s (1) Motion of a Declaration of Innocence; and (2) Motion to Quash any of the Following: a Mere Suspicion, a Reason to Believe, a Hunch, a So-Called Right to Believe, a Hearsay, etc. are DENIED.

SERVICE OF MOTION: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC 3.1300)      N/A

[X] Correct Address (CCP 1013, 1013a)                   N/A

[X] 16/21 Day Lapse (CCP 12c and 1005 (b))           N/A

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT: Action for slander.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF: Unclear.

OPPOSITION: None filed as of August 25, 2022.

REPLY: None filed as of August 25, 2022.

ANALYSIS:

On September 6, 2019, Plaintiff Chicuace Chicuace (“Plaintiff”) filed the Complaint in this action for slander against Defendants Jimmy A. Gomez and Leonard Mata (“Defendants”). Initially, the case was incorrectly classified as a class action; upon correction the case was reclassified to the limited jurisdiction court on September 17, 2019. On July 8, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ Motion to Quash Service of the Summons. (Mintue Order 07/08/20.) Plainitff filed proofs of personal service of the Summons and Complaint on November 15, 2021. An Order to Show Cause Re Failure to File Proof of Service and Failure to File Default Judgment is set for September 7, 2022.

On April 18, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant (1) Motion of a Declaration of Innocence; (2) Motion to Quash Any Quashing of Other Party; and (3) Motion to Quash any of the Following: a Mere Suspicion, a Reason to Believe, a Hunch, a So-Called Right to Believe, a Hearsay, etc.

The Motions are not supported by any legal authority or evidence. “The memorandum must contain a statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b).) Indeed, Plaintiff’s failure to provide memoranda as required by the Rule is an “admission that the [request] is without merit and cause for its denial.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1113, subds. (a), (b); In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 964, 976.)

Therefore, the (1) Motion of a Declaration of Innocence; (2) Motion to Quash Any Quashing of Other Party; and (3) Motion to Quash any of the Following: a Mere Suspicion, a Reason to Believe, a Hunch, a So-Called Right to Believe, a Hearsay, etc. are DENIED.

Court clerk to give notice.