Judge: Ronald F. Frazier, Case: 37-2020-00038780-CU-WT-CTL, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 31, 2023

09/01/2023  08:30:00 AM  C-65 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Ronald F. Frazier

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Wrongful Termination Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2020-00038780-CU-WT-CTL WOOD VS REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File First Amendment to Complaint: Seventh Cause of Action – California Control of Profits of Organized Crime Act Violation is DENIED. (ROA 92.) Plaintiff purportedly seeks leave of court to add a cause of action under the California Control of Profits of Organized Crime Act against Defendant. This Act is found at Penal Code sections 186-186.8 and outlaws criminal profiteering. The Act does not authorize a civil action, nor does it authorize private individuals to prosecute such crimes on the state's behalf. Rather, crimes under the Act are to be prosecuted by a prosecuting agency. (Pen. Code §§ 186.1, 186.2(c).) Moreover, review of the proposed amended pleading indicates Plaintiff has conflated the California statutes outlawing criminal profiteering with the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ('RICO'). The court concludes the proposed amended pleading is defective on the grounds it is so uncertain and confusing that Defendant would be prevented from intelligibly responding to it.

The court notes the proposed amendment was actually filed as Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint on the register of actions at ROA 107. Because this pleading was filed without leave of court, the court orders it stricken.

Finally, the court admonishes Plaintiff to avoid excessive briefing of motions in the future. Plaintiff lodged hundreds of exhibits, amounting to thousands of pages, all purportedly in support of this motion without any explanation of their relevance. The exhibits were lodged without proper formatting. (See Cal. R. Court, rule 3.1110(f)(3).) Plaintiff also filed a purported 'separate statement of undisputed material facts' in support of his motion, but separate statements of undisputed material facts are only authorized for summary judgment motions. (Cal. R. Court, rules 3.1112, 3.1350(c)(2) and (e)(2), and 3.1324.) Plaintiff is to comply with the rules of court when submitting papers going forward.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2986554  13