2015-00181475-CU-BT

Brian Spears vs. Lauren Spears

Nature of Proceeding: Motion for Relief from PLM Loan Mgmt Services, Inc’s Declaration of

Filed By: Spears, Brian

Self-represented Plaintiff Brian Spears’ Motion for Relief from PLM’s Declaration of Non-Monetary Status is DROPPED for untimely service.

At the outset, the Court would note that 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.

Plaintiff has failed to timely file and serve his moving papers. Code of Civil Procedure, sec. 1005 requires 16 court days’ notice of motion, with five additional calendar days for service by US Mail. Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 requires that the 16 court days be computed before counting the five calendar days for service by mail. See, Barefield v. Washington Mutual Bank (2006) 136 Cal.App. 4th 299, 303.

Effective Jan 1, 2011, Cal Code Civ. Proc. § 12c provides for calculation of last day to perform act before hearing date as follows:

“(a) Where any law requires an act to be performed no later than a specified number of days before a hearing date, the last day to perform that act shall be determined by counting backward from the hearing date, excluding the day of the hearing as provided by Section 12.”

“(b) Any additional days added to the specified number of days because of a particular method of service shall be computed by counting backward from the day determined in accordance with subdivision (a).”

Here, the moving papers were served by US Mail on December 13, 2017, and calendared for hearing on Jan. 8, 2018. December 25, 2017 and Jan. 1, 2018 were court holidays. That notice, counting backwards, allowed 16 court days’ notice, but did not allow any of the required five additional calendar days for service by mail.

The motion is therefore dropped.