Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV11440, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11440    Hearing Date: January 8, 2024    Dept: 34

        On May 22, 2023, Plaintiff in pro per filed an unlawful detainer complaint allegedly on behalf of LA Fitness.  The complaint was hand-written.  It stated that the “reasonable value for use of the poremsises [sic] is . . . 700 million per day.  (Complaint, p. 3, ¶ 9.)  The next paragraph alleges that “plaintiff has been deprived of the use of personal property located on the premisers [sic]” and that the “reasonable value of the use of such property is 15 million per day.”  (Complaint, p. 3, ¶ 10.)  Plaintiff stated that she “has suffered emotional and mental distress in the amount of 7 trillion dollars. . . .” (Compliant, p. 3, ¶ 11.)

On June 15, 2023, Plaintiff filed an ex parte Application and Order or Judgment for Order of Writ of Possession.  In the Application, Plaintiff stated:  “PRAYER FOR RELIEF IT DOES SAID IN THE LORDS PRAY THOSE WHO TRESPASS AND FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST USE . PRAYER FOR PERMENANT WRIT OF POSSESION AND PREJUDGEMENT CLAIM FOR DAMAGES IN THE AMOUNT OF 9810000000”  (Application, p. 2:17-20 [capitalization and typos in original].)  The Court denied the Application on June 21, 2023.

        On July 5, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte motion for a Writ of Possession.

        On September 19, 2023, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Default of Forcible Detainer and Order for Issuance of Writ of Attachment.”  (See 9/19/23 Minute Order.)  Among other reasons for the denial of the motion was that Plaintiff had never served defendants with the complaint. It also appeared that Plaintiff, who is not an attorney, was attempting to represent LA Fitness which is a business entity.

        On October 30, 2023, the Court held a Case Management Conference.  Plaintiff did not appear or otherwise contact the Court.  The complaint still had not been served.  The Court set an OSC re Dismissal for December 29, 2023, which was later continued to today’s date.

        As of the posting of this tentative, Plaintiff has still not served the complaint.  The Court believes that everyone – be they rich or poor, in pro per or represented by an attorney – has the right to make use of our judicial system.  On the other hand, there is no reason to continue this charade any longer.  Each time the Court calls this case, it costs the taxpayers of California more money.  Plaintiff, in pro per, cannot represent the corporate plaintiff.  Although the Complaint was filed eight months ago, there has apparently been no attempt to serve the complaint.  And even if there was a basis for an unlawful detainer, plaintiff is not entitled to 7 trillion dollars in pain and suffering. 

        The Court may strike any irrelevant, false, or improper pleading “at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper.” (Code Civ. Proc. §436.) That is because a judge should be able to dismiss claims “that are sufficiently fantastic to defy reality as we know it: claims about little green men, or the plaintiff’s recent trip to Pluto, or experiences in time travel.”  (Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 696 [129 S. Ct. 1937, 1959, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868] (2009) J. Souter, dis.)

Further, trial courts have the “flexibility to exercise historic inherent authority to fashion a remedy as necessary to protect [defendant’s] rights to be free from the monetary expense and other costs of responding to appellant’s frivolous claims that cannot avoid being categorized as ‘fantastic,’ ‘delusional,’ or ‘fanciful.’”  (Huang v. Hanks (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 179, 182 [cleaned up].)

        The case is dismissed.