This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/29/2019 at 03:22:02 (UTC).

DUANE L LENOX VS CITY OF LA PARKING VIOOATIONS BUREAU

Case Summary

On 07/03/2019 a Infraction - Parking case was filed by DUANE L LENOX against CITY OF LA PARKING VIOOATIONS BUREAU in the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******6199

  • Filing Date:

    07/03/2019

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Infraction - Parking

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

EDWARD B. MORETON

 

Party Details

Appellant

LENOX DUANE L

Respondents

CITY OF LA PARKING VIOOATIONS BUREAU

CITY OF LOS ANGELES PARKING VIOOATIONS BUREAU

 

Court Documents

Proof of Personal Service - (Amended)

9/19/2019: Proof of Personal Service - (Amended)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 09/25/2019

9/25/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 09/25/2019

Notice of Decision - Administrative Appeal - Notice of Decision - Administrative Appeal

9/25/2019: Notice of Decision - Administrative Appeal - Notice of Decision - Administrative Appeal

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

9/25/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Parking Appeal)

9/19/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Parking Appeal)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order on Petitioner's Duane A. Lenox Peremptory Challen...)

7/12/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order on Petitioner's Duane A. Lenox Peremptory Challen...)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re Reassignment)

7/16/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re Reassignment)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re Reassignment) of 07/16/2019

7/16/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re Reassignment) of 07/16/2019

Notice of Appeal - Parking - Notice of Appeal - Parking

7/3/2019: Notice of Appeal - Parking - Notice of Appeal - Parking

Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6) - Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

7/9/2019: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6) - Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

Request for Administrative File - Request for Administrative File

7/9/2019: Request for Administrative File - Request for Administrative File

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

7/3/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

7/3/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

1 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/25/2019
  • DocketNotice of Decision - Administrative Appeal; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Court Order)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order) of 09/25/2019; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketAmended Proof of Personal Service; Filed by: Duane L Lenox (Appellant); As to: City of Los Angeles Parking Viooations Bureau (Respondent); Service Date: 07/02/19; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Parking Appeal)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketHearing on Parking Appeal scheduled for 09/19/2019 at 10:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94 updated: Result Date to 09/19/2019; Result Type to Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketCase reassigned to Stanley Mosk Courthouse in Department 94 - Hon. Wendy Chang; Reason: Challenge / Recusal, by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketHearing on Parking Appeal scheduled for 09/19/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketMinute Order (Court Order Re Reassignment)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/16/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re Reassignment) of 07/16/2019; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
3 More Docket Entries
  • 07/09/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- City of Los Angeles Parking Viooations Bureau (Respondent): Organization Name changed from City of LA parking Viooations Bureau to City of Los Angeles Parking Viooations Bureau

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2019
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by: Duane L Lenox (Appellant); Judge Name: Edward B. Moreton

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2019
  • DocketRequest for Administrative File; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • DocketNotice of Appeal - Parking - Citation Number: 4334805845; Filed by: Duane L Lenox (Appellant); As to: City of LA parking Viooations Bureau (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Duane L Lenox (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Edward B. Moreton in Department 44 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • DocketHearing on Parking Appeal scheduled for 09/05/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 44

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by: Clerk; As to: Duane L Lenox (Appellant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2019
  • DocketUpdated -- Request to Waive Court Fees: Filed By: Duane L Lenox (Appellant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 07/03/2019; As To Parties: removed

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC06199    Hearing Date: February 26, 2020    Dept: 26

Lenox v. City of Los Angeles Parking Violation Bureau

MOTION TO VACATE ORDER, MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE, AND MOTION TO AMEND MINUTE ORDER

(CCP § 473)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Appellant Duane Lenox’s Motion to Vacate Judgment is DENIED.

ANALYSIS:

On July 3, 2019, Appellant Duane Lenox (“Appellant”) filed a Notice of Appeal – Parking (the “Parking Appeal”) regarding citation number 4334805845. The Parking Appeal was set for hearing on September 19, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 44. On July 9, 2019, Appellant filed a Peremptory Challenge to Judge Edward Moreton in Department 44. The Court granted the peremptory challenge on July 12, 2019. (7/12/19 Minute Order.) On September 25, 2019, this Court affirmed citation number 4334805845. (9/25/19 Notice of Decision.)

On October 11, 2019, Appellant filed a Motion to Vacate Order, Motion for Continuance, and Motion to Amend Minute Order (the “Motion”). The Court denied the Motion to Vacate Order etc. on January 14, 2020. On the same date, Appellant filed the instant Motion to Vacate Judgment. To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.

Discussion

Appellant requests that the Court vacate the Minute Order entered on January 14, 2020. In support of this request, Appellant cites to Peabody v. Phelps (1858) 9 Cal. 213, 229, which was overruled as pointed out in Wright v. Carillo (1863) 22 Cal. 595, 598. In any event, Appellant’s citation to Peabody is incorrect. That case does not stand for the proposition that “the common law afford indemnity against the consequences of indolence and folly, or careless indifference in the ordinary and accessible means of information.” (Motion, p. 1:22-25.) Rather, it stands for the opposite: “The common law affords to every one reasonable protection against fraud in dealing, but it does not go the romantic length of giving indemnity against the consequences of indolence and folly, or careless indifference to the ordinary and accessible means of information.” (Peabody v. Phelps (1858) 9 Cal. 213, 229 (citing Clarke v. Baird (1894) 7 Barb. 64).)

As with his Motion to Vacate Order, the Court again notes that Appellant has not cited any relevant authority that demonstrates he is entitled to the relief he seeks. The fact that Appellant was not present at the hearing on January 14, 2020 had no bearing on the ruling as the Court already reviewed the administrative file and heard from Appellant on September 25, 2019. Appellant does not provide any new information or provide relevant legal authority for the relief requested in the instant Motion.

For the foregoing reasons, Appellant Duane Lenox’s Motion to Vacate Judgment is DENIED.

Clerk to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC06199    Hearing Date: January 14, 2020    Dept: 94

MOTION TO VACATE ORDER, MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE, AND MOTION TO AMEND MINUTE ORDER

(CCP § 473)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Appellant Duane Lenox Motion to Vacate Order, Motion for Continuance, and Motion to Amend Minute Order is DENIED.

Background

On July 3, 2019, Appellant Duane Lenox (“Appellant”) filed a Notice of Appeal – Parking (the “Parking Appeal”) regarding citation number 4334805845. The Parking Appeal was set for hearing on September 5, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 44. On July 9, 2019, Appellant filed a Peremptory Challenge to Judge Edward Moreton in Department 44. The Court granted the peremptory challenge on July 12, 2019. (7/12/19 Minute Order.)

On July 16, 2019, the matter was assigned to Department 94, and the hearing on the Parking Appeal was set for September 19, 2019. (7/16/19 Minute Order.) On September 19, 2019, the Court ordered the case transferred to Judge Samantha Jessner in Department 1 “for review and reassignment only.” (9/19/19 Minute Order.) On September 25, 2019, this Court found that Department 94 was the proper venue for Appellant’s Parking Appeal and affirmed citation number 4334805845. (9/25/19 Notice of Decision.)

On October 11, 2019, Appellant filed the instant Motion to Vacate Order, Motion for Continuance, and Motion to Amend Minute Order (the “Motion”).

To date, no opposition or reply briefs have been filed.

II. Discussion

Appellant requests that the Court vacate the Minute Order entered on September 19, 2019, on the basis that his due process rights have been violated as a result of the Court’s refusal of permission to view Appellant’s administrative file.. (Mot., p. 2.) Appellant relied on March v. Municipal Court (1972) 7 Cal.3d 422 and argues that “a criminal defendant is entitled to a record of sufficient completeness to permit proper consideration of his claims.” (Id.) However, Appellant is not a criminal defendant. March v. Municipal Court involved indigent defendants and their right to obtain transcripts from the court and is thus inapplicable here. Appellant also cites to California Rules of Court, rule 8.865. However, rule 8.865 is also inapplicable because that rule pertains to the contents of a reporter’s transcript.

The Court notes that Appellant has not cited any relevant authority that demonstrates he is entitled to the relief he seeks. The Court has already reviewed the administrative file, heard from Appellant, and has affirmed the citation. (9/25/19 Minute Order.) Appellant does not provide any new information or provide relevant legal authority for any of his requests. Accordingly, Appellant’s Motion is DENIED.

III. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Appellant Duane Lenox Motion to Vacate Order, Motion for Continuance, and Motion to Amend Minute Order is DENIED.

Clerk to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Case Number: 19STLC06199    Hearing Date: November 13, 2019    Dept: 94

Duane Lenox vs City of Los Angeles

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM ORDER

(CCP § 473(b))

TENTATIVE RULING: Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from the September 25, 2019, Order affirming Plaintiff’s parking citations is CONTINUED to January 14, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On July 3, 2019, Duane L. Lenox, in propria persona, filed two parking citation appeals in Los Angeles Superior Court cases 19STLC06198 and 19STLC06199. On July 16, 2019, the cases were assigned to Department 94 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse for all proceedings. On September 19, 2019, Judge James Blancarte in Department 94 issued orders transferring both cases to Department 1 “for review and reassignment only.” On September 25, 2019, Judge Blancarte issued orders in both cases noting “Department 94 is the proper venue for the appellant’s hearing on parking appeal” and affirming both citations.

On October 21, 2019, Mr. Lenox, in propria persona, appeared ex parte in Department 1 seeking “an order of reversal of Court’s prior order to affirm the citation on 9-25-19” in Los Angeles Superior Court cases 19STLC06198 and 19STLC06199. The Court denied the ex parte application on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to support a declaration in support of either application demonstrating irreparable harm, and erroneously filed the motions with Department 1.

2. Legal Standard

The motion is first brought under Code of Civil Procedure, section 473, subdivision (b), which requires that an application for relief must be made no more than six months after entry of the order from which relief is sought and must be accompanied by an affidavit of fault attesting to the moving party’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise or neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b); English v. IKON Business Solutions (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 143.)

3. Discussion

Plaintiff has filed no proof of service of the present motion. On October 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a proof of service for the “Notice of Appeal – Administrative Hearing,” but wrote into the form that the case being appealed was an “Ex Parte Application for Reversal.”

Pursuant to Plaintiff’s motion, Plaintiff seeks to vacate “the minute order entered on 9-19-19 in Dept. 94.) (Motion 2:2.) However, the September 9, 2019, Minute Order transferred the matter to “Judge Samantha Jessner in Department 1 at the Stanley Mosk Courthouse for review and reassignment only.” (9/9/2019 Minute Order.) This Court affirmed the parking citations on September 25, 2019, after this Court determined that Department 94 was the proper venue for this matter. (9/25/2019 Minute Order.) Presumably, Defendant seeks to vacate the September 25, 2019, order affirming the citations.

Although unclear from the Motion, it appears that Plaintiff is arguing that at the September 19, 2019, hearing Plaintiff was wrongfully denied permission to view the administrative file by the “clerk.” Specifically, Plaintiff intended to retrieve photographs showing that Plaintiff was parked in a public park, and was not parked on private property for which Plaintiff was cited. Plaintiff requested that the Court grant a two-week continuance to allow Plaintiff to access the file, which Plaintiff contends was granted. However, the September 19, 2019, Minute Order improperly failed to include the ordered continuance.

Plaintiff contends that at the September 19. 2019, hearing, he was told by the Court that if Plaintiff could show that he was parked in a public park, and not on private property, the Court would dismiss the citation. Plaintiff contends that he reviewed the administrative file on October 11, 2019, and discovered that the relevant photographs were included therein.

However, Defendant has submitted no evidence in support of his contentions. No declaration has been filed with this motion, and despite Plaintiff’s assertion that “Sheriff Deputy Venezuela is a witness” of the two-week continuance, Plaintiff has attached no declaration from the latter. In the absence of any supporting evidence, Plaintiff’s motion is unavailing.

4. Conclusion & Order

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved from the September 25, 2019, Minute Order is CONTINUED. Plaintiff is to file and serve supplemental papers setting forth a legal and factual basis to vacate the default judgment corroborated by admissible evidence at least 16 court days prior to the new hearing date, Failure to comply with the court’s orders may result in the motion being placed off calendar or denied. Additionally, Plaintiff shall file proof of service of this motion and the supplemental papers reflecting that service was made upon Defendant at least 16 days before the new hearing date.

Court Clerk to give notice. 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.