Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV32282, Date: 2024-01-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV32282 Hearing Date: March 6, 2024 Dept: 34
SUBJECT: Motion for Change of Venue
Moving Party: Plaintiff
Glenn M. Heinl, in propria persona
Resp. Party: None
Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Change of
Venue is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR.
BACKGROUND:
On October 3, 2022,
Plaintiff Glenn M. Heinl, in propria persona, filed a Complaint against
Defendants Thrifty Drug Store; James Tony; the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles (erroneously sued as “L.A. County Court”); Ana Maria
Luna; Frank Gafgowski; Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office (erroneously
sued as “L.A. County Public Defenders Office”); and Andrew Stein.
On October 6, 2022,
Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint.
On November 7, 2022,
the Court granted Plaintiff limited leave until December 2, 2022 to file a
second amended complaint. Plaintiff did not file a second amended complaint by
the deadline. Instead, it appears Plaintiff attempted to file a second amended
complaint on December 9, 2022, which was rejected by the Clerk’s Office on
December 20, 2022.
On May 31, 2023, the
judicial officer sitting in Department 19 recused herself from this matter.
On November 8, 2023,
the judicial officer sitting in Department 55 recused herself from this matter.
On January 9, 2024,
the Court: (1) denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue;
(2) sustained the Demurrer of Defendant Los Angeles County Public Defender’s
Office; and (3) sustained the Demurrer of Defendants Ana Maria Luna and
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
On January 18, 2024,
Plaintiff filed Motion for Change of Venue (“Second Motion for Change of
Venue”).
ANALYSIS:
Plaintiff’s original Motion for Change
of Venue did not include proof that Plaintiff served any of the Defendants.
(Minute Order dated January 9, 2024, pp. 4–5.) Because of this procedural
defect, the Court did not reach the merits of the motion and denied the Motion
for Change of Venue without prejudice. (Id. at p. 5.)
Now Plaintiff presents the Court with his Second Motion for Change of
Venue. But because the Court sustained Defendants’ Demurrers to the Amended
Complaint on January 9, 2024, (and thus the Amended Complaint has been
dismissed), the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Second Motion for
Change of Venue.
“[M]ost orders
entered after the dismissal are void and have no effect. (Gogri v. Jack in the Box Inc. (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 255, 261 [82 Cal. Rptr. 3d 629]
[“‘[a]n order by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is void’”]; Paniagua v. Orange County Fire Authority (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 83, 89 [56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 746]
[“‘[i]t is a well-settled proposition of law that where the plaintiff has filed
a voluntary dismissal of an action . . . , the court is without jurisdiction to
act further [citations], and any subsequent orders of the court are simply
void’”].)” (Pittman v. Beck Park Apartments Ltd. (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th
1009, 1022.)
There are only
certain exceptions to this, such as in the case of motions for attorney’s fees,
motions for sanctions, and motions to declare a plaintiff a vexatious litigant.
(Pittman, supra, at pp. 1024–1025.) The situation at hand is not
included among these exceptions because the Second Motion for Change of Venue
is directly related to the current pleading, not to what happened during the
litigation.
Without jurisdiction, any act of the Court would be void. The only
thing the Court can do is take the motion off calendar. (Guardianship of
Lyle (1946) 77 Cal.App.2d 153, 155–156 [“‘Off Calendar’ is not synonymous
with ‘dismissal.’ ‘Off’ merely means a postponement whereas a ‘dismissal’ in
judicial procedure has reference to a cessation of consideration.” Courts have
control of pleadings in a case until a valid final judgment is rendered.”].)
As the Court stated at the previous hearing, the March 6, 2024 hearing is
to determine whether leave to amend should be granted (which would make the
dismissal of the Amended Complaint without prejudice) or whether the Demurrers
to the Amended Complaint are sustained without leave to amend (which would make
the dismissal of the Amended Complaint with prejudice and therefore a final
judgment).
CONCLUSION:
Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Change of
Venue is TAKEN OFF CALENDAR.