Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV06315, Date: 2024-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06315    Hearing Date: February 22, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 2-22-24

Case #22STCV06315

Trial Date: N/A

VACATE

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiffs, West Coast Add It Up Agency, et al.

RESPONDING PARTIES: Unopposed/Defendant, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion to Vacate and Enter Different Judgment

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On February 18, 2022, Plaintiffs in pro per, West Coast Add It Up Agency filed a complaint against Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority, et al. for “common count.” On January 18, 2023, the court denied Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. On April 11, 2023, the court denied the motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff. On April 18, and July 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed first and second amended complaints. On September 18, 2023, the court sustained the demurrer of Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority with leave to amend.

On October 13, 2023, Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint, which added in plaintiff Wi Miller. On January 4, 2024, the court sustained the demurrer of Los Angeles County Metropolitan Authority, et al. without leave to amend, and denied Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement. The court entered judgment on January 11, 2024.

RULING: Transferred and Continued.

Plaintiffs West Coast Add It Up Agency and Wi Miller move to “vacate and enter different judgment.” Plaintiffs contend the order sustaining the demurrer to the third amended complaint without leave to amend was improper in that Plaintiff was not required to present a government claim. The court also sustained the demurrer on grounds that the claims were barred by the four year statute of limitations, which Plaintiffs also challenge on grounds that the court both improperly ruled/misinterpreted the law and relied on false information.

Plaintiffs move for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 663, which provides in relevant part: “A judgment or decree, when based upon a decision by the court, ... may, upon motion of the party aggrieved, be set aside and vacated by the same court, and another and different judgment entered, for either of the following causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of the party and entitling the party to a different judgment: 1. Incorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts...” (Code Civ. Proc., § 663.)

“A motion to vacate judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 663 must be heard and determined by the judge who presided at the trial; provided, however, that in case of the inability or death of such judge or if at the time noticed for the hearing thereon he is absent from the county where the trial was had, the motion may be heard and determined by another judge of the same court.” (Cal. Rules Ct., rule 3.1602.)

The challenged hearing and judgment was heard and entered by Judge Douglas Stern. Judge Stern is now assigned to Torrance, an independent calendar court in Los Angeles County. Because Judge Stern remains available within the County of Los Angeles to hear the motion, the court must transfer the hearing of the motion to Judge Stern.

The court therefore instructs the clerk to forward the subject order to Judge Stern in Torrance, and for Plaintiff to arrange for the hearing of the instant motion in this courtroom.

Clerk to give notice to all parties.