Gerber v. Waters CA2/8

Filed 8/7/24 Gerber v. Waters CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

WILLIAM RENO GERBER, B324668

Plaintiff and Appellant, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. (21LBCV00429) v.

CONNIE WATERS et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael P. Vicencia, Judge. Affirmed. William Reno Gerber, in pro per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Bidari Civil Defense and Paymon Z. Bidari for Defendant and Respondent Connie Waters. No appearance for Defendant and Respondent Fred Gerber.

____________________

The trial court dismissed William Gerber’s civil case as to defendant Connie Waters because Gerber did not file an amended complaint within the 60 days the court had allowed. Gerber appeals from the dismissal and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. We affirm. Unspecified citations are to the Code of Civil Procedure. I Gerber sued Connie Waters and Fred Gerber in 2021. He alleged they conspired to steal from him. The orders William Gerber appeals from do not concern Fred Gerber. Further references are to William Gerber. Gerber also alleged that Waters had misused the processes of the prison where Gerber was incarcerated. Waters had told the prison Gerber was threatening her over the phone and in writing. Gerber feared including this information in his file might dash his hopes for parole. The trial court sustained Waters’s demurrer and gave Gerber 60 days to amend. The clerk mailed a copy of the minute order, which included the 60-day deadline, to Gerber the same day. Gerber was not present or officially represented at the hearing, but an attorney who represented him in other matters attended on his behalf and relayed the results to him by telephone. Two weeks after the 60-day deadline, Waters filed an ex parte motion to dismiss the case. (See California Rules of Court, rule 3.1320, subdivision (h).) The court heard the motion and dismissed the case. Gerber moved for reconsideration under section 1008 and for relief under section 473, arguing he had not received notice of the ex parte application and he was being systemically denied