Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 25STCP01006, Date: 2025-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 25STCP01006    Hearing Date: April 10, 2025    Dept: 82

Kimi Kim                                                                   Case No. 25STCP01006                                           

            v.                                                                      

Judge Rolf M. Treu of L.A. County                        Hearing Date: April 10, 2025 

Superior Court, Stanley Mosk                                Location: Stanley Mosk Courthouse

Courthouse                                                                Department: 82

NOTICE

            The court posts this tentative order on Sunday, April 6, 2025, in advance of the hearing on April 10, 2025, at 1:30 p.m.  If Petitioner does not appear at the hearing, either remotely or in-person, absent good cause, the court will take the hearing off-calendar and will issue the following tentative order dismissing her case with prejudice. 

[Tentative] ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH PREJUDICE

            Petitioner Kimi Kim (“Petitioner”) filed this petition for writ of mandate against “Judge Rolf M. True of L.A. County Superior Court, Stanley Mosk Courthouse” under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.  Petitioner alleges as follows:

            Petitioner is a landlord and owns the real property located at 1651 East 42nd Street #2 in Los Angeles, California.  (Petition ¶ 2.)  Petitioner filed an unlawful detainer case against her tenants.  (Ibid.)  The tenants were represented by Jacob Woocher, Esq.  (Id. ¶¶ 2-4.)  Petitioner alleges that Mr. Woocher “committed fraud by stealing $10,000” from her tenants, and “[t]his money belonged to Plaintiff.”  (Id. ¶¶ 2, 4.)  As a result, Petitioner filed a fraud action against Mr. Woocher, which was assigned to Judge Treu.  (Id. ¶¶ 2-8.)  Petitioner challenges a series of judicial decisions Judge Treu made in that case, specifically: (1) Judge Treu’s decision to grant a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, commonly known as an “Anti-SLAPP motion;” (2) Judge Treu’s decision to award the prevailing party $5,000 in attorneys’ fees; (3) Judge Treu’s decision concerning “an application for removal by peremptory application” based upon judicial bias, presumably under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1;  and (4) Judge Treu’s decision on certain discovery issues.  (Id. ¶¶ 3-7.)  Petitioner seeks the following remedies: (1) A writ of mandate requiring Judge Treu to set aside his order granting the Anti-SLAPP motion; (2) A writ of mandate requiring Judge Treu to set aside the judgment awarding $5,000 in attorneys’ fees; (3) A writ of mandate to remove “all recorded liens” on Plaintiff’s property relating to the award of attorneys’ fees; (4) A writ of mandate requiring defendants “to respond to three court ordered subpoenas dated 3/25/25;” and (5) An award against Judge Treu in the amount of $25,000.  (Id. at p. 4.)             

            On March 20, 2025, the court issued a minute order stating as follows:

On its face, the petition does not state a valid claim for writ of mandate under section 1094.5. Petitioner challenges legal rulings made by Judge Treu, which must be reviewed by the appropriate appellate court. This court lacks jurisdiction to review and order changes to legal rulings and case-related decisions of another judge on a different case.

(See Court’s Minute Order, dated March 20, 2025.)  Accordingly, the court noticed its own motion for judgment on the pleadings, per the authority of Code of Civil Procedure section 438(b)(2).  (See ibid.)  The court also noticed an Order to Show Cause why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice, per Huang v. Hanks (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 179.  (See ibid.)  Having provided written notice, the court set the matter for hearing on April 10, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. and authorized Petitioner to file an opposition/response.  (See ibid.)  The court provided notice as follows:

1.  If Petitioner does not file and opposition articulating a proper legal basis to proceed against Judge Treu under these circumstance, absent good cause, the court will dismiss this case with prejudice, per its own motion and/or the OSC.

2.  If Petitioner does not appear at the hearing, absent good cause, the court will assume there is no proper legal basis to proceed against Judge Treu under these circumstances and will dismiss this case with prejudice, per its own motion and/or the OSC.    

(Ibid.)  The court has reviewed and considered Petitioner’s three opposition briefs.  As an initial matter, Petitioner incorrectly refers to the court’s minute order as coming from the Clerk’s Office.  In fact, the undersigned issued the order upon reviewing the petition.  Petitioner also challenges the court’s authority to issue its own motion for judgment on the pleadings and OSC re: dismissal prior to Respondent filing an answer.  The court has authority to do so under Code of Civil Procedure section 438(b)(2) and Huang v. Hanks (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 179. 

            Petitioner articulates no lawful basis to proceed by way of a petition for writ of mandate.  At heart, Petitioner challenges Judge Treu’s decisions in her case.  This court does not have jurisdiction to review and order changes to legal rulings and case-related decisions of another judge on a different case.  Rather, Petitioner must seek review by the appropriate appellate court.  Nor does this court has authority to issue a judgment against Judge Treu in the amount of $25,000, as requested by Petitioner.  Judicial immunity bars civil actions against judges for acts performed in the exercise of their judicial functions, and applies to all judicial determinations.  (See Howard v. Drapkin (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 843, 896-897.)

            Based upon the foregoing, the court orders as follows:

            1.         The court grants its own motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismisses this case.

            2.         In the alternative, the court dismisses this case pursuant to its own OSC.

            3.         Because Petitioner cannot proceed as a matter of law, and no amendment would cure the defect, the court denies leave to amend and dismisses this case with prejudice.

            4.         The court provides notice: Petitioner may be subject to a designation as a vexatious litigant under Code of Civil Procedure section 391 et seq. if she: (a) continues to file and/or maintain petitions for writs of mandate concerning issues that must be raised with the appropriate appellate court, and/or (b) continues to file and/or maintain lawsuits seeking monetary damages against Superior Court Judges for acts performed within the scope of their judicial duties. 

            5.         The court’s clerk shall provide notice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated:  April 10, 2025                                                ____________________________

                                                                                    Stephen I. Goorvitch

                                                                                    Superior Court Judge