Quick update:
I just got a copy of the order in the mail today. This just seems way off. I know, you guys probably hear that a thousand times a day. I'm happy to accept your points of view, being that you are the attorneys and I am not one.
So, the motion was denied. All told, this motion took the judge's office 32 days to process. At the same time, the plaintiff filed its own ex parte motion to sub in a new plaintiff. Their motion was processed from start to finish in less than one week. I called the judge's assistant and requested an update on when the motion was to be signed and sent back....thats when I was told on 11/3 that they had denied the motion that day and it was signed and heading back to the court clerk at that time. My first concern is that according to my state law and Supreme Court, this issue is to be resolved simply by checking the records of the case. If 3 years really has passed since last action of record, then the court "shall issue an order of dismissal". I'm concerned that, rather than follow those requirements, the judge's staff consulted with opposing counsel, asked them to explain their side of the deal. Then, plaintiff's attorney sent a letter to the judge in which their arguments against my motion were laid out. I believe that to be prohibited...LA's code of Judicial Conduct specifies two things. First, that when the law uses the word "shall", the judge does not have broad discretion. "Shall" appearing in the text of the law, according to this code, means the judge is in violation if other measures are taken. Second, the Code of Judicial Conduct also prohibits ex parte communication between judge and a party in which arguments are made that are designed to convince that judge to rule a certain way. I believe that this is what took place. The judge's clerk was not shy with details, she clearly said that she contacted plainitff's attorney to get their take on my motion, and that they then sent the letter to the judge requesting that my motion be denied. At first glance, at least, this seems like all the wrong things were done. No one seems to know why my motion took so long, when an ex parte motion from the plaintiff was in my hands 7 days after it was originally filed. Just seems wrong, that one side in a case can get a drastically faster response than the other. Both were ex parte motions that according to my state code of civil procedure did not require any additional proof to address, so should have taken at least a somewhat similar amount of time.
Second concern, the judge's staff appears to have intentionally misled me as to the status of my motion. I do not expect to win the case by speaking with the judge's assistant or law clerk. But I also do not expect that each time they call or I call them, their story is different. In the end, I was given three separate dates that they supposedly signed the motion and sent it back, and none of them ended up being the actual one. They told me that plaintiff's attorney informed them that a motion to sub in a new plaintiff would be forthcoming, and the law clerk even told me that my motion was "left on the desk" until the other party had an opportunity to file their motion first. There just seems to be collaborating between the judge's staff and the plaintiff that should not be taking place. My motion did not rely on theirs in any way and theirs did not rely on mine. Also, because of the timing of mine, according to the law, theirs is moot.
Third, when I finally did get the copy of the motion back, it was simply denied. The only sort of explanation I was given is that since the plaintiff had already taken the action of filing their motion to sub in a new plaintiff, that my motion was no longer timely, and so it was denied. This flies totally in the face of what the law says on this in my state. Hence the plan to appeal. But at this point, the only way I can find to look at this is that they got my motion, held it intentionally while they contacted the plaintiff and gave plaintiff the opportunity to take action, and then denied my motion(wrongly) because of said action by plaintiff. Case law from the Supreme Court does not permit this kind of "sitting on the desk" for a month approach. They actually told me that because they knew the plaintiff was going to file their motion, they parked mine with the intention to deny it after.
Please, is this the way that courts are supposed to remain impartial, by informing the other party and then sitting on one party's filing so the other has a chance to act first? As I mentioned, I am not an attorney, but this just seems very improper to me. All thoughts are welcome, thanks for your time and please don't beat down on the non-attorney in the room thanks

