This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/17/2019 at 03:34:25 (UTC).

ERIC PREVEN VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/04/2016 ERIC PREVEN filed an Other - Other Judicial Review lawsuit against CITY OF LOS ANGELES. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6039

  • Filing Date:

    11/04/2016

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Other - Other Judicial Review

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

PREVEN ERIC

Defendants and Respondents

LOS ANGELES CITY OF

LOS ANGELES COUNTY OF

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

BOYLAN PAUL NICHOLAS ESQ.

BOYLAN PAUL NICHOLAS

Defendant Attorney

FEUER MICHAEL NELSON

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL

1/17/2018: NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL

NOTICE OF DEFAULT (UNLIMITED CIVIL APPEALS)

2/22/2018: NOTICE OF DEFAULT (UNLIMITED CIVIL APPEALS)

Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

2/27/2019: Challenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6)

Minute Order

3/6/2019: Minute Order

VERIFIED PETITION FOR VRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT; THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT; AND TILE CITY OF LO

11/4/2016: VERIFIED PETITION FOR VRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT; THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT; AND TILE CITY OF LO

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

11/21/2016: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

11/21/2016: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

12/5/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Minute Order

3/2/2017: Minute Order

PETITIONER'S SUPPLEMENTAL GRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (RESPONDENT)'S DEMURRER; PROOF OF SERVICE

3/17/2017: PETITIONER'S SUPPLEMENTAL GRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (RESPONDENT)'S DEMURRER; PROOF OF SERVICE

PETITIONER'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (RESPONDENT)'S DEMURRER; PROOF OF SERVICE

3/20/2017: PETITIONER'S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES (RESPONDENT)'S DEMURRER; PROOF OF SERVICE

NOTICE OF DEMURRER; DEMURRER OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

6/16/2017: NOTICE OF DEMURRER; DEMURRER OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF

RESPONDENT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; EXHIBITS 1-6

6/16/2017: RESPONDENT CITY OF LOS ANGELES' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; EXHIBITS 1-6

Minute Order

7/10/2017: Minute Order

PETITIONER'S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S DEMURRER

9/13/2017: PETITIONER'S OPPOSITION TO RESPONDENT'S DEMURRER

Minute Order

9/26/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

11/16/2017: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT

11/16/2017: JUDGMENT

39 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/04/2019
  • DocketAppeal - Remittitur - Other (- Affirmed in part, reversed in part. B287559); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 24; Status Conference (re Appeal) - Not Held - Vacated by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2019
  • DocketStipulated Judgment; Filed by Eric Preven (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2019
  • DocketNotice of Status Conference and Order; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department 58; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Minute Order (Court Order)]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2019
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Minute Order (Court Order) of 03/06/2019); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2019
  • DocketChallenge To Judicial Officer - Peremptory (170.6); Filed by Eric Preven (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/20/2018
  • DocketNotice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
68 More Docket Entries
  • 12/05/2016
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by Plaintiff/Petitioner

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2016
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2016
  • DocketPROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2016
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2016
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2016
  • DocketORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/21/2016
  • DocketNOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2016
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2016
  • DocketVERIFIED PETITION FOR VRIT OF MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT; THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT; AND TILE CITY OF LOS ANGELES MUNICIPAL CODE.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2016
  • DocketPetition; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BS166039    Hearing Date: July 29, 2020    Dept: 24

Petitioner Eric Preven’s motion to vacate judgment is DENIED.

On November 4, 2016, Petitioner Eric Preven (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Ralph M. Brown Act, Gov. Code section 54950 et seq. (the “Brown Act”) against Respondents City of Los Angeles and City of Los Angeles City Counsel (“Respondents”). The operative Firs Amended Petition alleges a single remaining cause of action under the Brown Act.

On October 25, 2017, the Court sustained Respondent’s demurrer to the petition without leave. Petitioner made a timely appeal. The Court of Appeal reversed the ruling in part regarding the Brown Act violation, ruling that the operative petition stated a cause of action. Following remittitur, the parties entered a consent judgment on April 5, 2019. On September 10, 2019, Petitioner filed a request for dismissal of the entire action.

On December 13, 2019, Petitioner filed, in pro per, the instant motion to set aside/vacate judgment. On March 18, 2020, Respondents filed an opposition.

Discussion

Petitioner requests that the Court vacate the voluntary dismissal. Petitioner provides a declaration that his counsel entered into a settlement agreement with the City without his permission.

Several substantive and procedural issues bar relief. First, Petitioner does not cite any law that provides for the requested relief. Petitioner only provides a notice of motion without any points and authorities. The notice of motion does discuss the facts, but provides no procedural basis for relief. As there is no legal basis for relief stated, the Court will not grant the requested relief.

Moreover, CRC Rule 3.1113 provides that a motion must include a memorandum in support of motion. It states in part that “[a] party filing a motion... must serve and file a supporting memorandum. The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion or special demurrer is not meritorious and cause for its denial and, in the case of a demurrer, as a waiver of all grounds not supported.” (CRC Rule 3.1113(a).) As Petitioner fails to include such a memorandum, the motion likewise fails.

Further, assuming that Petitioner meant to file this motion under CCP section 473, 473.1, or 473.5, the motion still fails. Each of those sections requires a judgment entered “against” him. Here, the judgment was entered in his favor. The CCP therefore provides no relief under those sections.

Even if those sections applied to the instant judgment, the motion was not made within 6 months of the judgment. Discretionary relief to vacate a judgment may be made under CCP section 473(b) due to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 473(b).) A motion for discretionary relief must be made “within a reasonable time but in no instance exceeding six months after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Id.) CCP section 473.1 has a similar 6 month requirement. The other sections facially do not apply. Here, judgment was entered on April 5, 2019. The instant motion was made more than 6 months after that date on December 13, 2019. The Court therefore cannot grant any relief.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: BS166039    Hearing Date: July 06, 2020    Dept: 24

Petitioner Eric Preven’s motion to vacate judgment is DENIED.

On November 4, 2016, Petitioner Eric Preven (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Ralph M. Brown Act, Gov. Code section 54950 et seq. (the “Brown Act”) against Respondents City of Los Angeles and City of Los Angeles City Counsel (“Respondents”). The operative Firs Amended Petition alleges a single remaining cause of action under the Brown Act.

On October 25, 2017, the Court sustained Respondent’s demurrer to the petition without leave. Petitioner made a timely appeal. The Court of Appeal reversed the ruling in part regarding the Brown Act violation, ruling that the operative petition stated a cause of action. Following remittitur, the parties entered a consent judgment on April 5, 2019. On September 10, 2019, Petitioner filed a request for dismissal of the entire action.

On December 13, 2019, Petitioner filed, in pro per, the instant motion to set aside/vacate judgment. On March 18, 2020, Respondents filed an opposition.

Discussion

Petitioner requests that the Court vacate the voluntary dismissal. Petitioner provides a declaration that his counsel entered into a settlement agreement with the City without his permission.

Several substantive and procedural issues bar relief. First, Petitioner does not cite any law that provides for the requested relief. Petitioner only provides a notice of motion without any points and authorities. The notice of motion does discuss the facts, but provides no procedural basis for relief. As there is no legal basis for relief stated, the Court will not grant the requested relief.

Moreover, CRC Rule 3.1113 provides that a motion must include a memorandum in support of motion. It states in part that “[a] party filing a motion... must serve and file a supporting memorandum. The court may construe the absence of a memorandum as an admission that the motion or special demurrer is not meritorious and cause for its denial and, in the case of a demurrer, as a waiver of all grounds not supported.” (CRC Rule 3.1113(a).) As Petitioner fails to include such a memorandum, the motion likewise fails.

Further, assuming that Petitioner meant to file this motion under CCP section 473, 473.1, or 473.5, the motion still fails. Each of those sections requires a judgment entered “against” him. Here, the judgment was entered in his favor. The CCP therefore provides no relief under those sections.

Even if those sections applied to the instant judgment, the motion was not made within 6 months of the judgment. Discretionary relief to vacate a judgment may be made under CCP section 473(b) due to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (CCP § 473(b).) A motion for discretionary relief must be made “within a reasonable time but in no instance exceeding six months after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Id.) CCP section 473.1 has a similar 6 month requirement. The other sections facially do not apply. Here, judgment was entered on April 5, 2019. The instant motion was made more than 6 months after that date on December 13, 2019. The Court therefore cannot grant any relief.

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer FEUER MICHAEL NELSON