Judge Michelle C. Kim, Case 19STCV05567 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 19STCV05567, Date: 2023-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV05567 Hearing Date: April 24, 2023 Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MARGARITA MARIA CARRANZA,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

)

CASE NO: 19STCV05567

[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Dept. 31

1:30 p.m.

April 24, 2023

On February 19, 2019, Plaintiff Margarita Maria Carranza (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants County of Los Angeles, et al. for injuries relating to Plaintiff’s alleged trip and fall on a sidewalk. On March 28, 2022, Plaintiff, through counsel, filed a Notice of Settlement of Entire Case providing that the parties had entered into a conditional settlement agreement. Thereafter, a Request for Dismissal seeking to dismiss the entire action with prejudice, signed by Plaintiff’s counsel, was filed. The dismissal was entered as requested on July 13, 2022.

On April 3, 2023, Plaintiff, now purportedly in pro per, filed the instant motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff provides that the “case remains with unfiled Judgement from Settlement of 03/29/22.” (Mot. at p. 1:22-23.) Plaintiff filed a request for judicial notice with an unsigned settlement agreement and a “Request Re-open Complaint Case” attached.[1]

In light of the Request for Dismissal dismissing the entire action, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. (See Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Daniel G. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1007-08.) “The dismissal with prejudice of the lawsuit deprived the superior court of subject matter jurisdiction. Absent a pending lawsuit, a court cannot issue judgments or orders. A superior court has subject matter jurisdiction over most original ‘causes.’ A cause commences with the filing of an action or special proceeding. A dismissal terminates an action. A superior court thereafter has no subject matter jurisdiction to grant relief other than costs and fees as appropriate…” (Ibid., citations omitted.) Because this action has been dismissed, the Court does not have authority to hear Plaintiff’s motion.

Accordingly, the motion is denied.[2]

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number. The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.
Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument. You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.
If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.

Dated this 24^th day of April 2023

Hon. Michelle C. Kim

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] Non-party Tigran Martinian (“Martinian”) filed an opposition to the motion. Martinian provides that Martinian represented Plaintiff as her former counsel in this action and that Plaintiff’s motion relates to a dispute concerning the settlement entered into in this matter.

[2] Additionally, the motion was brought on improper notice. CCP § 437c(a)(2) requires that a motion for summary judgment be brought on 75 days' notice: “Notice of the motion and supporting papers shall be served on all other parties to the action at least 75 days before the time appointed for the hearing.” Plaintiff, however, filed the instant motion only 21 days before the hearing.