Page 1
Bedsworth Bemoans Some Pro Pers Victimizing Adversaries, Courts
Court of Appeal Desists From Dumping Appeal, Affirming Judgment Against Self-Represented Litigant on Merits
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Court of Appeal Acting Presiding Justice William W. Bedsworth of the Fourth District’s Div. Three yesterday acknowledged that the judiciary must show patience toward self-represented litigants, but evinced exasperation over a fumbling appellant sapping the time and energy of the court.
Hanh Thi My Do is seeking reversal of a default judgment in favor of the Orange Tree Condominium Owners Association (“HOA”) which sued based on her breaches of conditions, covenants, and restrictions (“CC&Rs”). Orange Superior Court Judge Nick A. Dourbetas ordered entry of judgment and denied Do’s untimely and factually unsupported motion to set aside the default.
Bedsworth said in his unpublished opinion:
“As lawyers, we may easily take for granted basic aspects of civil procedure, the methods we employ so often they become second nature. As judges, however, we recognize non-lawyers face a more daunting task as they litigate their matters before our courts. For them, the procedures so common to us can seem arcane, counterintuitive, or unwieldy. And so a little bit of patience and understanding is required with self-represented litigants.”
He added, however:
“This case demonstrates how some self-represented litigants take advantage of the leniency bestowed upon them. Some of them, like the appellant herein, appear to weaponize it, draining resources, energy, and time not only from their opponents, but from the courts.”
Respondent’s Contention
The HOA argued in its appellate brief:
“ Appellant’s opening brief is incomprehensible and devoid of any discussion or argument whatsoever related to the Order from which she appealed….She references an unrelated case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in which Respondent has never been a party nor participant in any fashion. Her opening brief discusses title of the condominium she once owned, her lender and mortgage holder Bank of America, and other unrelated and irrelevant matters that are not the subject of this appeal or a part of the record on appeal. Yet, nowhere in her opening brief does Appellant submit any pertinent or intelligible arguments as to the Order from which she appealed or why she should prevail on appeal. Accordingly, Appellant’s appeal lacks any factual or legal basis and should be dismissed.”
It noted:
“Despite having a record in this appeal that is 12 volumes with over 3,500 pages, Appellant’s opening brief does not appear to cite to the record a single time.”
Bedsworth’s Response
Bedsworth acknowledged that “we are unable to discern anything useful to our review” in the opening brief, but said:
“Nevertheless, we conclude the better approach here is to affirm the trial court’s judgment on its merits precisely because appellant has given us no legal reason to reverse it.”
The judgment was for more than $226,000 in damages, fees, and costs.
The jurist said the Clerk’s Office properly entered Do’s default because a paper she filed did not constitute a responsive pleading. Dourbetas correctly denied relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §473 because, aside for So’s motion being untimely, “appellant presented no evidence she failed to file a responsive pleading due to “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect,” as required by that section, Bedsworth added.
The case is Orange Tree Condominium Owners Assn. v. Do, G062672.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company