This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 12/08/2019 at 16:15:59 (UTC).

PETER KLEIDMAN VS DIVISION P (A.K.A. PRE-DOCKET DIVISION) OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 06/06/2019 PETER KLEIDMAN filed an Other lawsuit against DIVISION P A K A PRE-DOCKET DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Santa Monica Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1039

  • Filing Date:

    06/06/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

KLEIDMAN PETER

Defendants

THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE

RFF FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LP

DIVISION P A.K.A. PRE-DOCKET DIVISION OF THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA

LUI ELWOOD

THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA

COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant Attorneys

JENKINS CARA

MCCORMICK KEVIN MICHAEL

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal

12/5/2019: Request for Dismissal

Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AS TO DIVISION P

12/5/2019: Motion for Order - MOTION FOR ORDER PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AS TO DIVISION P

Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

11/26/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER

Request for Judicial Notice

11/26/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Declaration re: Due Diligence

11/26/2019: Declaration re: Due Diligence

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/26/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

11/26/2019: Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

11/26/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Case Management Statement

11/26/2019: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

11/26/2019: Case Management Statement

Case Management Statement

11/27/2019: Case Management Statement

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/4/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

10/30/2019: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

9/27/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

6/6/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case

Notice of Case Management Conference

6/6/2019: Notice of Case Management Conference

Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

6/6/2019: Summons - SUMMONS ON COMPLAINT

Complaint

6/6/2019: Complaint

16 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 12/11/2019
  • Hearing12/11/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department P at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2019
  • Hearing12/11/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department P at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/11/2019
  • Hearing12/11/2019 at 08:30 AM in Department P at 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2019
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by Peter Kleidman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2019
  • DocketMotion for Order (Plaintiff's MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT AS TO DIVISION P); Filed by Peter Kleidman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2019
  • DocketReply (REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER BY DEFENDANTS, THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL, TO COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT); Filed by Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District (Defendant); the Judicial Council of California (Defendant); the Supreme Court of California (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/03/2019
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department P; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by the California Legislature (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2019
  • DocketOpposition (PLAINTIFF?S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER); Filed by Peter Kleidman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2019
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice; Filed by Peter Kleidman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
14 More Docket Entries
  • 09/26/2019
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike; Filed by the California Legislature (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2019
  • DocketDeclaration (Declaration of Cara L. Jenkins Regarding Efforts to Comply with Section 430.41(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure); Filed by the California Legislature (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2019
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by the California Legislature (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • DocketRETURNED MAIL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Peter Kleidman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Peter Kleidman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Peter Kleidman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Peter Kleidman (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19SMCV01039    Hearing Date: July 29, 2020    Dept: P

 

Tentative Ruling

Peter Kleidman v. Division P, Case No. 19SMCV01039

Hearing Date 7/29/2020

(1) Defendant Division P’s Demurrer to Complaint and

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default

Plaintiff alleges his due process rights under the United States Constitution were violated by the California Court of Appeal in Kleidman v. RFF Family Partnership, case no. SC121303; appellate case no. is B268541, wherein plaintiff alleges the Court ruled against him based on arguments not advanced in either party’s briefs and failed to address certain arguments of his arguments. Plaintiff argues various elements of the statutory and precedential law surrounding California’s appellate process – including the “Great Public Importance Rule” and the prohibition on citations to unpublished opinions – violate the Constitution’s guarantee of due process. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and a writ of mandate against the Second District of the California Court of Appeal, Division P of the same district, the California Legislature, the Judicial Council, the Supreme Court of California, RFF Family Partnership, LP and Administrative Justice Elwood Lui.

On December 5, 2019, the plaintiff dismissed the complaint as to the California Legislature and the Supreme Court of California. See 12/5/2019 request for dismissal. On December 10, 2019 plaintiff dismissed the complaint as to RFF Family Partnership, LP. See 12/10/2019 request for dismissal. On December 11, 2019, the court sustained a demurrer without leave to amend as to defendants the Supreme Court of California, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, the Hon. Lui, and the Judicial Council of California. See 12/11/2019 minute order at pg. 3. The remaining defendant, Division P of the Second Appellate District, demurs. Plaintiff moves for entry of default against Division P.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default

Courts have a duty to correct clerical errors brought to their attention. LaMar v. Superior Court (1948) 87 Cal.App.2d 126, 131. Plaintiff argues the clerk erred by refusing to enter default against defendant Division P. Motion for Entry of Default pgs. 2-3. Defendant argues default cannot be entered against Division P, because it exists within the Second District and is not a separate, suable entity. Regardless of whether division P is a suable entity, this court, as an inferior tribunal, lacks jurisdiction to provide the relief plaintiff requests, as explained further below. The motion for entry of default is DENIED.

Defendant Division P’s Demurrer

The doctrine of judicial immunity bars actions against judges for acts performed in the exercise of their judicial functions. Howard v. Drapkin (1990) 222 Cal.Ap.3d 843, 851-852. Plaintiff’s claims all arise out of judges performing judicial functions. Plaintiff essentially seeks to reverse the Court of Appeal’s adverse ruling. Such is barred by the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. Plaintiff argues judicial immunity applies only to individuals, and not tribunals, but provides no authority for that proposition. Courts can only act through individual officers, and the policy reasons for granting individual judicial officers immunity for their official acts apply equally to judicial tribunals.

This suit essentially attempts to overturn the Court of Appeal’s ruling. Plaintiff provides no authority for the proposition that this lower court has jurisdiction to review and reverse the decision of a Court of Appeal. This court has no such authority and declines to order plaintiff’s attempt to circumvent the appellate process. SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Case Number: 19SMCV01039    Hearing Date: December 11, 2019    Dept: P

 

TENTATIVE RULING

Peter Kleidman v. Division P, et al. Case No. 19SMCV01039

Defendants’ Demurrer to Complaint

Hearing Date: 12/11/2019

Plaintiff argues the California appellate process violates the federal and California constitutions. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the following statutes, provisions, or rules are unconstitutional under the due process or equal protection clauses:

- Cal. Gov. Code §68081’s provision allowing a court of appeal to issue a decision based on an issue not initially briefed by the parties, as long as an opportunity for supplemental briefing is provided.

- The “Great Public Importance Rule,” under which the CA Supreme Court will only exercise original jurisdiction in cases where “the issues presented are of great public importance and must be resolved promptly.”

- The absence of any rule requiring a court of appeal opinion to address every argument made in the losing party’s papers

- The rule forbidding citation to unpublished opinions

- The portion of Cal. Civ. Code §1717 which construes a contractual attorney’s fees provision as applying to an entire contract unless each party was represented by counsel in the negotiation of the contract

- The existence of a “pre-docketing” appellate division presided over by an administrative judge with the power to order a judgment of dismissal.

- Rule of court 10.10004(c)(2), giving an administrative presiding justice “the authority of a presiding justice with respect to any matter that has not been assigned to a particular division.”

Plaintiffs’ arguments stem from his loss on appeal in case no. B268541 and the California Supreme Court’s subsequent refusal to review the Court of Appeal’s decision. Plaintiff argues the appellate opinion issued on 7/10/2018 violated his constitutional due process rights because of the reasons stated above and because the opinion relied on arguments not raised in the parties’ briefs and failed to state its reasons for certain dispositive findings. Plaintiff sues the Second Appellate District Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court of California, the California Legislature, the Judicial Council of California and Administrative Presiding Justice Elwood Lui for declaratory relief and writ of mandate.

Defendant the California Legislature also demurs, but the motion is MOOT pursuant to plaintiff’s December 5, 2019 dismissal of that defendant.

The Supreme Court of California, California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, the Hon. Elwood Lui, and the Judicial Council of California (“judicial branch defendants”) demur to all causes of action.

Under Cal. Civ. Code §47(b)’s absolute judicial immunity provision, any publication made in a judicial proceeding and reviewable is privileged. The doctrine applies to claims for damages, as well as “actions for declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief.” Moore. v. Brewster (9th Cir.,1996) 96 F.3d 1240, 1244. Judicial immunity applies to judicial determinations “rendered in excess of the judge’s jurisdiction.” Howard v. Drapkin (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 843, 852.

Plaintiff’s causes of action all arise from judicial acts performed in case no. B268541, including the Second Appellate District’s decision and the California Supreme Court’s denial of review. Such acts fall under Cal. Civ. Code §47(b), and cannot result in civil liability.

Plaintiff argues §47’s doctrine of judicial immunity is unconstitutional for violating the “separation of powers doctrine,” but fails to cite to any provision of the United States or California Constitution purportedly violated by §47(b). Nor does plaintiff present authority supporting the proposition that a state legislature lacks the ability to immunize state judges from lawsuits arising out of their judicial functions. Plaintiff also argues judicial immunity does not apply to defendant Lui because this lawsuit is based on “acts outside [Lui’s] judicial functions,” as “leader of the rogue Division P[.]” Opp. at pg. 19. First, plaintiff provides no allegation that any alleged acts were taken outside Lui’s judicial function, but, under Drapkin, judicial immunity applies even if a judicial officer acts outside his or her jurisdiction.

While plaintiff’s causes of action are styled as claims for declaratory relief and writ of mandate, they amount to an attempt to circumvent the appellate process and obtain an order by this court vacating the decisions of superior tribunals. Under Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1085 “[a] writ of mandate may be issued by any court to an inferior tribunal.” Plaintiff provides no authority supporting the proposition that this court can reverse the orders of the California Court of Appeal or Supreme Court. GRANTED without leave to amend.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where RFF FAMILY PARTNERSHIP LP is a litigant

Latest cases where SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA is a litigant

Latest cases where JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA is a litigant

Latest cases where Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District is a litigant