Thomas M. Deal v. Fred Gerkensmeyer, et al.

March 20, 2026, Civil Law & Motion Tentative Rulings

1. CL0001259 Thomas M. Deal v. Fred Gerkensmeyer, et al.

Plaintiff Thomas M. Deal’s motion for reconsideration is denied. Any perceived request to approve a Third Amended Complaint is denied as Plaintiff has failed to file a noticed motion requesting such.

At bar, it is unclear what Plaintiff is requesting the court reconsider. It appears Plaintiff is under the incorrect impression the sustaining of Defendant Regional Housing (“RHA”) Authority’s demurrer without leave to amend necessitated the filing of a third amended complaint just to Defendant Gerkensmeyer. Such is not the case. RHA was dismissed from the case on January 20, 2025, but Defendant Gerkensmeyer remains as a party.

Self-represented litigants are to be treated like any other party and receive no greater consideration than litigants represented by attorneys. ViaView, Inc. v. Retzlaff (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 198, 208. Accordingly, pro se parties are held to the same standards and must comply with the same rules as attorneys. Nuno v. California State University, Bakersfield (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 799, 811 (“[J]udges are not required to act as counsel for self-represented part[ies], instead, self-represented litigants “must expect and receive the same treatment as if represented by an attorney – no different, no better, no worse.”, quoting Taylor v. Bell (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1009).

Therefore, Plaintiff is admonished to not file any amended complaint prior to a motion for leave and absent leave of the court. Additionally, contrary to Plaintiff’s belief in his papers, the court notes Plaintiff remains on the Vexatious Litigant List, which has been updated as of March 1, 2026.

2. CL0003838 In the Matter of Brandon Murray

The petition for release of mechanic’s lien is denied without prejudice.

Introduction