2011-00110507-CU-MM

Mark Swaggerty vs. Sacramento County

Nature of Proceeding:   Motion for Discrimination of Court

Filed By:  Swagerty Jr., Mark

Self-represented plaintiff Mark Swagerty, Jr.’s Motion for Discrimination of Court is
unopposed, but is DROPPED from the Court’s calendar.

Plaintiff contends that the court has not accepted his summons. Parenthetically, the
form and content of the summons are prescribed by statute and Judicial Council rules,
and the statutory requirements are mandatory. (See C.C.P. 412.20(a) [“a summons …
shall contain” specified matters]; Lyman v. Milton (1872) 44 C. 630, 634 [“Its form is
prescribed by law; and whatever the form may be it must be observed, at least
substantially”]. There is no record in CCMS that a proposed summons has been
rejected.  The summons was issued September 9, 2011.

No proof of service of the summons and complaint on the defendant appears in the
Court file, nor has the defendant has previously made a general appearance. C.C.P.
section 417.30(a).

The summons and complaint must be served on all named defendants and proofs of
service on those defendants must be filed with the court within 60 days after the filing
of the complaint. When the complaint is amended to add a defendant, the added
defendant must be served and proof of service must be filed within 30 days
after the filing of the amended complaint. Cal Rules of Court, Rule 3.110.

Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to file proof of service of the moving papers no later
than five court days before the time appointed for the hearing and has failed to provide
sufficient notice of motion. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1300; C.C.P., sec. 1005.

Here, no proof of service of the moving papers was provided, but the motion was not
filed until January 27, 2014, seven court days before the hearing.

CCP 1005(b) requires 16 court days plus 5 calendar days for mailing.  See Barefield v
Washington Mutual Bank (2006) 136 Cal. App. 4th 299, 303.   Defective notice
deprives the Court of jurisdiction to act.  Lee v. Placer Title Co  (1994)  28 Cal. App.
4th 503, 509, 511. See also CCP 12c.

A self-represented party is to be treated like any other party and is entitled to the
same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (  Williams v.
Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. (1986) 186 Cal. App. 3d 941, 944) Thus, as is the case
with attorneys, self-represented litigants must follow correct rules of procedure. Nwosu
v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1229, 1246-1247; see also Rappleyea v. Campbell
(1994) 8 Cal. 4th 975, 984.

This ruling is without prejudice to plaintiff seeking relief from this court regarding
alleged accommodation of disabilities by the court.  Any future motion concerning this
issue must include copies of the relevant documents and include a declaration setting
forth facts to support his belief that court staff is not accommodating his disabilities.