PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF STANDING AND CORRECTION OF CLERICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR
FARIDI v TDS TRUSTEE SERVICES
25CV48053
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF STANDING AND CORRECTION OF CLERICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR
Plaintiff Tariq Jamil Faridi (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint arising out of a real property dispute with Defendant Steve Carlson (“Carlson”.) Now before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a determination of Plaintiff’s standing and a motion to correct a clerical error pursuant to Code Civil Procedure section 473(b).
Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on July 3, 2025, against Carlson and “TDS Trustee Services” (“TDS.”)1 In the FAC, Plaintiff alleged that on or about March 7, 2025, TDS recorded a Trustee's Deed Upon Sale naming Carlson as grantee and thereafter Carlson evicted Plaintiff from the premises. On July 11, 2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal pursuant to which he dismissed Carlson as a defendant on all causes of action, with prejudice. Carlson is no longer a party to this action.
Plaintiff’s current motions are confusing and meritless. Plaintiff complains that the service of the FAC on Carlson should show service on January 16, 2026, instead of the date shown on the docket (Jan 23, 2026.) The docket, however, clearly shows that the Court filed the proof of service on January 23 but shows that service occurred on January 16, 2026. It is unclear what error Plaintiff is asserting nor how the alleged error has impacted this case.
Plaintiff also asks the Court to determine that he has standing to bring the matter. However, what Plaintiff is ultimately asking the Court to determine is that he has provided sufficient evidence to show that he is entitled to prevail on his claims against Carlson and TDS.
First, Plaintiff dismissed Carlson, with prejudice, on his own accord. Plaintiff does not allege that he made a mistake or error in doing so nor does he cite to any legal authority that would allow him to continue to pursue claims against Carlson after dismissing him with prejudice. (See Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73, 91 [“dismissal with prejudice is considered a judgment on the merits preventing subsequent litigation between the parties on the dismissed claim.”]
Second, the relief sought by Plaintiff in his motion cannot be determined by a finding of standing alone. Thus, the motion is inappropriate.
1 TDS asserts that its true name is TD Specialists.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Plaintiff’s motion for determination of standing and for remedy of a clerical error are DENIED.
The clerk shall provide notice of this ruling to the parties forthwith. Defendant to submit a formal Order complying with Rule 3.1312 in conformity with this Ruling.