Judge: Mark H. Epstein, Case: 20STCV02713, Date: 2024-12-17 Tentative Ruling

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling. Please call the court no later than 4:30 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, leave a message with the court clerk at (310) 260-3629 advising her that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing, and finally, serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing.

Case Number: 20STCV02713    Hearing Date: December 17, 2024    Dept: I

The motion to set aside is DENIED.  First, there is no proof that plaintiff even served this on the defendant, which is improper and cause alone to deny the request.  But even on the merits, the motion fails. 

Plaintiff claims that defendant had no right to oust plaintiff from his home because plaintiff had title.  Plaintiff alleges that he loaned money to the prior owner and that owner deeded the property to plaintiff, who paid for it.  Plaintiff also paid back taxes.  Plaintiff alleges that he had to evict the prior owner, but a lawyer stole plaintiff’s money.  The property wound up vacant.  Allegedly, Shellpoint started helping plaintiff with paperwork for a short sale and plaintiff claims he relied on Shellpoint for that.  But suddenly, plaintiff asserts, defendant changed the password on his account so he could not view his monthly statements on line or make the required monthly payments.  Plaintiff claims she turned to Shellpoint for help, but got none.  Eventually, there was an eviction by defendant, who allegedly had actual notice of the fraud that plaintiff alleges was going on.  Plaintiff asserts that it has been less than six months since the order she wishes to set aside was filed (which is not accurate).  Plaintiff also claims that the court has been acting like a lawyer for the defense.  Accordingly, she argues, the court must set aside the dismissal.  

The court is at a loss here.  The complaint in the instant case was filed on January 22, 2020.  A request for a preliminary injunction was denied by another judge on the merits and due to procedural issues.  By September, another judge of this court noted that plaintiff had to complete service of process or the matter would not go forward.  Shortly thereafter, on October 13, 2020, this case was related to other cases and the cases were assigned to this court.    Defendants served discovery, but plaintiff failed to respond.  Defendants moved to compel responses.  On February 25, 2021, at a hearing plaintiff did not attend, the court granted the unopposed motions and sanctioned plaintiff $4000 for not responding to discovery.  The court ordered that plaintiff respond to the discovery within 20 days.  The court also set an OSC re: Dismissal because it appeared that plaintiff had abandoned the case.  Plaintiff was directed to appear in person or remotely at the hearing.  The court stated that the OSC would be discharged without the need for briefing if plaintiff appeared at the hearing.  The court’s concern was that, by then, the matter had been pending for a long time in that plaintiff had filed her case over a year and a half earlier and the matter still was not ready to have a trial set.  At the next hearing, plaintiff did appear.  The OSC was discharged and a trial date was set for June 20, 2022.  The defense filed a motion for sanctions and argued that plaintiff was a vexatious litigant.  The court stated at the June 4, 2021, hearing that it put no weight on that argument as it had not been proven that plaintiff was on the vexatious litigant list and there was no cause for sanctions on that ground.  However, defendant also noted that plaintiff had not responded to discovery even after the February 25, 2021, order.  Plaintiff had not paid the monetary sanctions and further had not responded to discovery.  Her counsel withdrew on April 14, 2021, and plaintiff was now self-represented.  Defendant stated that plaintiff had been asked if she intended to respond to discovery, but she would not answer that question.  Defendant argued that monetary sanctions obviously did not work.  Defendant sought an issue sanction determining that defendant did not evict plaintiff, take plaintiff’s property, or defamed plaintiff.  The court agreed that monetary sanctions were insufficient, but the court noted that the issues defendant sought to have determined were the functional equivalent of a terminating sanction.  The court noted that a terminating sanction required a significant showing that defendant had not yet made.  The court issued its guidance on when it would issue what types of sanction and continued the matter to May 7, 2021.  The court allowed defendant to make an appropriate showing to justify the sanctions it sought and it allowed plaintiff to respond.  The court noted that it was convinced that plaintiff had ignored the court’s prior order and that some form of sanction was appropriate.  On July 29, 2021, the court resumed the hearing on sanctions.  Plaintiff attended the hearing but had not responded to defendant’s supplemental brief.  The court ordered that plaintiff be precluded from presenting evidence that would likely have been disclosed in proper responses to the discovery in question and that plaintiff not be allowed to call any witness other than herself, and warned that further violations could result in terminating sanction.  On June 13, 2022, the court held the final status conference.  Plaintiff did not appear and had submitted no FSC materials.  The court therefore vacated the trial date and set an OSC re: Dismissal due to plaintiff’s failure to appear at the FSC and failure to comply with the court’s FSC orders.  At the August 12, 2022, plaintiff claimed that she was ill and could not appear and that she could not speak English—something she had not said previously.  The court therefore continued the hearing.  In the meantime, defendant moved for terminating sanctions, a motion plaintiff did not oppose.  At the continued OSC, held on October 19, 2022, plaintiff again did not appear.  Plaintiff had filed no papers in response, but did request a 30 day continuance.  The court was inclined to dismiss the case, but instead continued it to the date of the hearing on defendant’s sanctions motion.  On October 25, 2022, the sanctions motion was held and plaintiff again did not appear.  The court noted plaintiff’s lack of participation in the case and granted the motion.

The motion to set aside—which is the motion currently before the court—was filed on November 8, 2024—over two years after the case was ordered to be dismissed.  The motion is untimely and sets forth no reason to vacate the prior order.  The motion is, therefore, DENIED.