2013-00147929-CU-PA
Eugene Dawson vs. Marva Jean Miller
Nature of Proceeding: Motion to Vacate Order of Dismissal
Filed By: Dawson, Eugene
This motion was continued from the prior hearing date of May 6, 2014 at Plaintiff’s
request to continue the matter to obtain counsel.
No timely opposition having been filed, the prior tentative ruling is republished below.
Self-represented Plaintiff’s Motion to Vacate Dismissal is DENIED. C.C.P., sec. 473
(b).
The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as
required by with C.R.C., Rule 3.1308 and Local Rule 1.06(D). Local Rules for the
Sacramento Superior Court are available on the Court’s website at
notify opposing party immediately of the tentative ruling system and to be available at
the hearing, in person or by telephone, in the event opposing party appears without
following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).
In this motor vehicle personal injury case, self-represented plaintiff and defendant
negotiated a settlement agreement. Defendant paid the full policy limits of the
insurance policy ($15,000) together with a personal contribution of $1,000 from the
defendant, which was specifically negotiated for by plaintiff. In exchange, plaintiff
signed a Request for Dismissal with prejudice and a Release.
Plaintiff was aware that MediCal had a lien for the medical care he received. The
$15,000 check was made payable jointly to plaintiff and Medicare. The $1,000 check
from defendant personally was made payable to plaintiff alone.
On Feb. 20, 2014, the Request for Dismissal of the entire action with prejudice signed
by self-represented plaintiff was filed. Plaintiff now seeks to rescind the settlement and Request for Dismissal, contending
that he did not know the amount of the MediCal lien, and he had incurred more than
$15,000 in medical costs. He asserts that he signed the release and request for
dismissal under duress. He contends that defense counsel should have informed him
of the amount of the lien and should not have surprised him with settlement
negotiations, when he was not expecting them.
In the exercise of the Court’s discretion, it finds that plaintiff has failed to show facts
sufficient to support a finding of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.”
It is apparent that plaintiff actively participated in the settlement negotiations, and
negotiated for and obtained the bargained for benefit of an additional payment from
the defendant, personally.
Plaintiff’s lack of counsel is an insufficient basis to set aside a settlement and
dismissal. If the Court were to find that it was sufficient, no judgment against a self-
represented party would ever be final. Burnete v. La Casa Dana Apartments (2007)
148 Cal. App. 4th 1262.
Self-represented litigants are not entitled to special treatment and are required to
follow the procedural rules that govern civil litigation. McComber v. Wells (1999) 72
th
Cal.App.4 512, 522-523. A party representing himself is to be treated like any other
party and is entitled to the same, but no greater, consideration than other litigants and
attorneys. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247; see also Leslie v.
Board of Medical Quality Assurance (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 117, 121.)
The Court will sign the formal order provided by defendant.
Link to this page