Dumas v. L.A. Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, No. B288554 (D2d4 Feb. 18, 2020)
This pro se civil rights case got dismissed after plaintiff failed to show for his depo a couple of times. Plaintiff raises a host of issues on appeal. (We know how that ends, right...) There are two procedural ones.
First, Plaintiff tried to disqualify the trial judge by filing a statement of disqualification under Code of Civil Procedure § 170.3. The trial court struck it under § 170.4(b) for being untimely and for failing to state a legally adequate basis for disqualification. A DQ order, however, isn’t appealable from a final judgment. The only way to challenge it is to take a writ, which needs to filed within ten days of the service of the order. Plaintiff here didn’t take a writ. So he can’t challenge the striking on appeal.
Second, prior to the dismissal, Defendant successfully demurred to some of Plaintiff’s claims without conducting a telephonic or in person meet and confer, as required by § 430.41. But § 430.41(a)(4) specifically states that a failure to meet and confer isn’t a basis to grant or deny a demurrer. So while the trial court could have sent the parties back to talk more before it decided the motion, its disinclination to do so has no meaningful effect on the appeal.
Affirmed.
No comments:
Post a Comment