Judge: Rupert A. Byrdsong, Case: 23STCV16607, Date: 2025-01-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV16607    Hearing Date: January 29, 2025    Dept: 28

Tentative Ruling

Judge Rupert A. Byrdsong

Department 28

Hearing Date:                                  January 29, 2025          

Case Name:                                      Ito v. Loza, et al.

Case No.:                                           23STCV16607               

Motion:                                              Default Judgment

Moving Party:                                 Plaintiff Jeffrey Ito

Responding Party:                         Unopposed

Notice:                                                OK

Recommended Ruling:               Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment in his favor

and against Defendants Lizette Loza, Ramon Loza, and Maria Loza is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On July 17, 2023, Plaintiff Jeffrey Ito (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Lizette Loza, Ramon Loza, and Maria Loza (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleged a cause of action for invasion of privacy. Though not explicitly listed as a cause of action, Plaintiff also attempts to state a claim for negligence.

Plaintiff alleges that he entered into a lease agreement for a piece of real property located at 1147 West 35th Street Apartment B, Room #2, Los Angeles, California 90007. Plaintiff claims this property was owned and managed by Defendants. Allegedly, while Plaintiff was occupying the premises, Plaintiff’s roommate and landlord attempted to spy on Plaintiff’s inner consciousness through a method called connectionism. Plaintiff claims he immediately moved out, and in the ensuing weeks, Plaintiff dealt with various harassing messages from Defendants.

On October 16, 2023, Plaintiff served all Defendants by mail at their Arizona address. On March 22, 2024, each of the Defendants filed an answer, but at multiple subsequent case management conferences, Defendants failed to appear. Therefore, on October 18, 2024, the Court struck each Defendant’s answer and entered default against each Defendant. This is Plaintiff’s first request for entry of default judgment.

ANALYSIS

Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) Section 585 permits entry of a judgment after a defendant’s default has been entered.  A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP Section 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.  CRC 3.1800.

JC Form CIV-100 must be used to request court judgment.  Item number 2 must be completed.  Item number 8 must be completed if the Defendant is an individual.  Plaintiff must submit a proposed form of judgment. 

Here, Plaintiff used JC Form CIV-100 for Defendants, completed items 2 and 8, and submitted a proposed form of judgment using a JUD-100 form. However, Plaintiff’s compliance with procedural requirements does not obviate the larger issue of whether Plaintiff has sufficiently stated a cause of action.

When it comes to default judgments, the Court must act as a gatekeeper to ensure that only appropriate claims get through. Grappo v. McMills (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 996, 1012. “[I]f the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint do not state any proper cause of action, the default judgment in the plaintiff's favor cannot stand.” Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 282.

In looking at the complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not stated a cause of action. The basis of Plaintiff’s complaint is that his roommate and landlords worked in tandem to “spy[] on the contents of the Plaintiff’s conscious experience using parallel distributed processing (PDP) also known as connectionism.” Complaint, ¶ 7. Courts have inherent power to dismiss lawsuits to protect the rights of Defendants “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. The Court does not and will not recognize causes of action predicated upon uses of “connectionism” to spy on someone’s consciousness. Seemingly, Plaintiff even acknowledges the tenuous nature of his claims by pleading that research on this method is still a work in progress and that data is not available. Compliant, ¶¶ 7, 16.

In light of the lack of recognition for connectionism supporting a claim for relief, Plaintiff’s complaint is insufficient to maintain a default judgment in his favor. Plaintiff’s negligence claim similarly fails because he premises the negligence claim upon use of connectionism. Complaint, ¶ 14. To the extent that Plaintiff further attempts to state claims that for either invasion of privacy or defamation, these claims are defeated for similar reasons. Ultimately, the whole complaint is tainted by this fanciful flight into connectionism.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for entry of default judgment in his favor and against Defendants Lizette Loza, Ramon Loza, and Maria Loza is DENIED.