Orange Tree Condominium Owners Assn. v. Do CA4/3

Filed 7/24/24 Orange Tree Condominium Owners Assn. v. Do CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ORANGE TREE CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION, G062672 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2021- v. 01235743)

HANH THI MY DO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Nick A. Dourbetas, Judge. Affirmed. Hanh Thi My Do, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Fiore, Racobs & Powers and Andrew D. Scoble for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION As lawyers, we may easily take for granted basic aspects of civil procedure, the methods we employ so often they become second nature. As judges, however, we recognize non-lawyers face a more daunting task as they litigate their matters before our courts. For them, the procedures so common to us can seem arcane, counterintuitive, or unwieldy. And so a little bit of patience and understanding is required with self-represented litigants. They lack a lawyer’s familiarity with the system and “are more prone to misunderstanding the court’s requirements.” (Gamet v. Blanchard (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1276, 1284.) Yet “mere self-representation is not a ground for exceptionally lenient treatment. Except when a particular rule provides otherwise, the rules of civil procedure must apply equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forgo attorney representation.” (Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.) This case demonstrates how some self-represented litigants take advantage of the leniency bestowed upon them. Some of them, like the appellant herein, appear to weaponize it, draining resources, energy, and time not only from their opponents, but from the courts. Appellant Hanh Thi My Do was sued by her homeowners’ association, respondent Orange Tree Condominium Owners Association (HOA) for breaching her development’s conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R’s). Rather than filing a responsive pleading, appellant filed other documents. After two months, the HOA entered appellant’s default, and judgment was entered on the default some months afterward. Appellant filed a motion to set aside the default, but it was denied because it was untimely and also because it did not present any evidence of “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” as a result of which the default