Opinion
E067323
10-15-2018
S. EMANUEL LIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MATTHEW JOHNSON et al., Defendants and Respondents.
S. Emanuel Lin, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Tyler & Bursch, Jennifer L. Bursch and Nathan R. Klein, for Defendants and Respondents.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. RIC1411077) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Sunshine S. Sykes, Judge. Dismissed. S. Emanuel Lin, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Tyler & Bursch, Jennifer L. Bursch and Nathan R. Klein, for Defendants and Respondents.
I. INTRODUCTION
Since 1979, plaintiff and appellant S. Emanuel Lin has owned a 10-acre property in Perris, California. Since 2014, defendant and respondent WRSP, LLC (WRSP), which is owned and operated by defendant and respondent Matthew Johnson (collectively, the WRSP defendants), has operated a private gun range on an adjacent property leased from the City of Perris (the City).
Lin, representing himself in propria persona, brought the lawsuit from which this appeal arises against the City and the WRSP defendants, asserting claims related to his property and the new gun range. During the course of the litigation, the trial court imposed sanctions against Lin payable to the WRSP defendants in the amount of $5,760 after Lin's fourth unsuccessful request for leave to amend his complaint. In the present appeal, Lin asks that we reverse that sanctions award.
The WRSP defendants argue that the appeal is moot because they waived the right to collect on the sanctions award at issue pursuant to a settlement of the present action and a related action (Lin v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, Riverside Superior Court No. RIC1500781). We agree. The appeal will therefore be dismissed as moot.
II. BACKGROUND
Lin brought suit against the City and the WRSP defendants in November 2014. During the course of the litigation, Lin attempted to amend his complaint four times. On November 19, 2015, the trial court denied Lin's first motion for leave to file an amended complaint without prejudice for failing to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324. Lin's motion was not accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities at all, let alone one satisfying the content requirements of rule 3.1324.
On April 12, 2016, the trial court denied Lin's second motion to file an amended complaint "due to [his] lack of diligence in discovering the facts that give rise to the new cause of action, as well as his failure to comply with procedural requirements. Again, Lin's motion was not accompanied by a memorandum of points and authorities. Moreover, Lin had attempted to modify the proposed new complaint by means of a supplemental filing on April 5, 2016, submitting documents describing additional causes of action not included in his original moving papers.
On October 3, 2016, the trial court denied Lin's third motion to file an amended complaint "due to [his] lack of diligence in discovering the facts that give rise to the new causes of action," as well as his failure to support the motion with a memorandum of points and authorities. At the hearing on the motion, the trial court detailed at length various procedural and substantive failings of Lin's motion and the proposed amended complaint. The trial court cautioned Lin that if he sought a fourth time to amend the complaint and again did so "improperly," the trial court would "likely impose sanctions" if there was a properly noticed request for sanctions by defendants.
On November 17, 2016, the trial court denied Lin's fourth motion to file an amended complaint. Although Lin did include a memorandum of points and authorities, the motion was not timely served. Moreover, the proposed amended complaint was almost identical to the one Lin had previously proposed. The trial court noted that Lin had failed to address the substantive defects in the proposed amended complaint that had previously been explained to him regarding lack of diligence. Specifically, the court found that "[a]ll of the causes of action are based on allegations that were either known to [Lin] or could have been discovered earlier through diligence. Most of the causes of action are based on public records . . . . Other causes of action are based on improvements to the gun range property that have existed since before the initial complaint was filed." The court further found that Lin's "explanations as to why he did not include the facts earlier demonstrate lack of diligence."
The WRSP defendants had filed a noticed motion requesting sanctions based on Lin's fourth motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On November 17, 2016, the trial court granted the motion, ordering that Lin pay $5,760 to the WRSP defendants.
At a mandatory settlement conference on January 13, 2017, the parties reached a settlement agreement to resolve both the present lawsuit and the related action, the terms of which were agreed to orally on the record by the WRSP defendants, Lin, and the defendant in the related action. A representative for the City was present, as was outside counsel for the City. The City's counsel represented that the City would agree to the terms placed on the record at the upcoming meeting of the city council. At the City's next council meeting, in February 2017, the City formally approved the settlement agreement.
The parties' agreement, as placed on the record on January 13, 2017, included the WRSP defendants' waiver of their right to collect on the sanctions award at issue. The parties were unable to reach an agreement regarding a written version of their settlement agreement, but on May 12, 2017, the trial court entered a judgment pursuant to section 664.6, based on the parties' January 13, 2017, oral agreement. The judgment reflects, among other things, that the WRSP defendants "waive their rights to collect sanctions that have previously been awarded against [Lin] . . . ."
The judgment entered on May 12, 2017, is the subject of a separate appeal (case No. E068706). In our opinion ruling on that matter, filed concurrently with the present opinion, we affirm the judgment.
III. DISCUSSION
Lin contends that the trial court's order imposing sanctions against him is erroneous in various respects, both substantive and procedural. Nevertheless, pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement and as reflected in the judgment, the WRSP defendants have waived the right to collect on the sanctions order. "[A]s a general matter, an issue is moot if 'any ruling by [the] court can have no practical impact or provide the parties effectual relief.'" (People v. J.S. (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 163, 170, quoting Woodward Park Homeowners Assn. v. Garreks, Inc. (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 880, 888.) In the related appeal (S. Emanuel Lin v. City of Perris et al., E068706), we affirm that judgment. Lin has presented no reason why the sanctions order at issue might have any continuing practical effect for him (say, a professional license requiring reporting of the imposition of sanctions, regardless of whether he must pay the amounts imposed). Lin's claims of error are therefore moot, and we decline to reach their merits.
IV. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot. The WRSP defendants are awarded their costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. SLOUGH
J.