Opinion
B296763
04-30-2020
DEE ANETIONETTE DEVILLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. EDWARD J. O'NEILL, Inc., Defendant and Respondent.
Dee Anetionette DeVille, in pro. per. for Plaintiff and Appellant. Cole Pedroza, Kenneth R. Pedroza, and Kristin M. Tannler for Defendant and Respondent.
ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING [No change in the judgment]
IT IS ORDERED that the opinion filed in the above-captioned matter on April 30, 2020, be modified as follows:
1. On the first page, the judge's name is modified to read: "Christopher K. Lui, Judge."
There is no change in the judgment.
The petition for rehearing filed by appellant on May 5, 2020, is denied. /s/_________
BIGELOW, P. J. /s/_________
STRATTON, J. /s/_________
WILEY, J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC675597) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Christopher K. Liu, Judge. Affirmed. Dee Anetionette DeVille, in pro. per. for Plaintiff and Appellant. Cole Pedroza, Kenneth R. Pedroza, and Kristin M. Tannler for Defendant and Respondent.
____________________
MEMORANDUM OPIONION
Dee Anetionette DeVille appeals from the dismissal of her action against Edward J. O'Neill, M.D., Inc. (O'Neill) for failure to appear for trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (b)(3).) She contends the dismissal is unwarranted because she never received notice of the dates for the final status conference and trial. The record clearly shows otherwise.
DeVille brought a workers' compensation suit against her employer for injuries she allegedly sustained between 1987 and 2001. DeVille's attorney and her employer's attorney agreed to have O'Neill conduct a medical examination of DeVille in connection with the lawsuit. DeVille alleges O'Neill made false statements in his medical reports and was negligent in his examination of her. Had O'Neill performed his duties with the proper care, DeVille asserts, she would have received a judgment against her employer exceeding $1,000,000.
DeVille filed her complaint against O'Neill on September 13, 2017. The clerk stamped on the first page of the conformed copy of the complaint, "FSC: 02/27/2019 TRIAL: 03/13/2019 OSC: 09/14/2020." The clerk also wrote "93 Landin" on the first page of the complaint, indicating the case had been assigned to the Honorable Dennis J. Landin in Department 93. According to the case summary, nothing was filed in the matter from 2017 to 2019. Indeed, DeVille admits she never served O'Neill with the complaint. On March 13, 2019, the trial court dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (b)(3), when neither party appeared for trial or communicated to the court any reason for their absence.
We conclude the trial court properly dismissed the action. Code of Civil Procedure section 581, subdivision (b)(3), provides the court may dismiss an action "when no party appears for trial following 30 days' notice of time and place of trial." It is clear DeVille received notice of the trial date at the time she filed her complaint pursuant to local rules. (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 3.23; Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide (Rutter 2019) Civil Procedure Before Trial, ¶ 12:77.1 ["Los Angeles Superior Court has dispensed with case management conferences in simple cases; and in most personal injury cases, the trial date is assigned when the complaint is filed and no case management conference is held. [L.A. Sup.Ct. Rules 3.23-3.25(a)].") We are not persuaded by DeVille's unsubstantiated assertion that her conformed copy of the complaint does not contain the final status conference and trial dates.
DeVille provides no authority for the proposition that the trial court was required to serve any additional notice of the trial date to DeVille beyond the initial notice provided. California Rules of Court, rule 3.110(f), on which she relies, merely provides the trial court may issue sanctions if a proof of service of the complaint is not filed with the court within 60 days of the filing of the complaint. Moreover, the cases cited by DeVille, People v. Bankers Ins. Co. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 582 and County of Orange v. Lexington Nat. Inc. Corp. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1488, address notice requirements for bail bonds, not personal injury litigation. They are inapplicable to the issue at hand.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondent is awarded costs on appeal.
BIGELOW, P. J. WE CONCUR:
STRATTON, J.
WILEY, J.