Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 22STCV09608, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV09608    Hearing Date: March 28, 2024    Dept: 1

22STCV09608           GLENN M HEINL vs ODET BEVERLY HILLS JEWELERS, et al.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Change of Venue Code of Civil Procedure § 397

TENTATIVE RULING:  The motion is taken off calendar for lack of service.  Clerk to give notice to all parties.

Plaintiff Heinl’s motion consists of a two-page handwritten pleading dated January 23, 2024.

The new motion is also not accompanied by a proof of service and the time to file a proof of service has expired. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.1300(c) (“Proof of service of the moving papers must be filed no later than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing.”).) “[P]ro per litigants are not entitled to special exemptions from the California Rules of Court.” (Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284.) Proper service and notice are required to satisfy due process. (See generally, McMillin v. Eare (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 893, 913 (describing the “right to notice, which is an element of due process.”).) Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed. Absent evidence of proper notice and service, the Court lacks jurisdiction to act. (See e.g. Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509; Code Civ. Proc. § 1005.)

Plaintiff’s motion is therefore taken OFF-CALENDAR for lack of proper service.