Judge: Nathan Vu, Case: 2019-01116262, Date: 2022-11-28 Tentative Ruling

Please Note: The hearing on this matter is scheduled for 8:30 A.M.

Motion for Leave to Re-File Documents

Plaintiff Dariusz J. Kadziolka’s motion for leave to re-file documents is DENIED.

Plaintiff Dariusz J. Kadziolka moves for leave to refile documents. Plaintiff appears to be requesting a six-month extension to file an amended complaint and claims that he needs this time to obtain legal representation.

The court is sympathetic to the efforts that a pro per litigant expends in presenting their case and fully recognizes the personal investment the pro per litigant has in their case. However, the court must treat a self-represented party the same as a represented party and must uniformly apply the procedural and substantive rules of the legal system. (See Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.)

As explained by the Supreme Court, “mere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment. Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation. . . . . A doctrine generally requiring or permitting exceptional treatment of parties who represent themselves would lead to a quagmire in the trial courts, and would be unfair to the other parties to litigation.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985, citation omitted.) “A litigant has a right to act as his own attorney [citation] ‘but, in so doing, should be restricted to the same rules of evidence and procedure as is required of those qualified to practice law before our courts; otherwise, ignorance is unjustly rewarded.’” (Doran v. Dreyer (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 289, 290, quoting Knapp v. Fleming (1953) 127 Colo. 414, 415.)

Plaintiff’s motion and supporting memorandum fail to include cogent legal arguments, legal analysis, or pertinent legal authority. Thus, the court cannot grant the motion. (See People v. Freeman (1994) 8 Cal.4th 450, 482, fn. 2 [“To the extent [a party] perfunctorily asserts other claims without development . . . , they are not properly made, and are rejected on that basis”].)

In addition, Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. On 08/08/2022, the court granted Plaintiff 15 days leave to amend the complaint. The instant motion was not filed until

44 days later, on 09/21/2022.

Further, the court may not grant an extension longer than 30 days and thus, cannot grant the 6-month extension requested by Plaintiff. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 1054, subd. (a).) Even if the court were to grant a 30-day extension now, such an extension would have long passed already.

Defendant City of Huntington Beach shall give notice of this ruling.