Esquire v. Shinsegae CA2/5

Filed 1/28/25 Esquire v. Shinsegae CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

BRIAND ESQUIRE, B328497

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 20STCV27853)

SHINSEGAE, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Gail Killefer, Judge. Affirmed. Briand Esquire, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance by Defendants and Respondents.

We consider whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing with prejudice Briand Esquire’s (plaintiff’s) putative class action complaint because he had not served any of the named defendants in nearly three years since the complaint’s filing.

I. BACKGROUND In July 2020, plaintiff, on behalf of himself, the general public, and an unidentified class of similarly situated persons, sued seven grocery store enterprises, along with 15 executives and grocery store managers, for “vile” conduct. Other than general facts about the corporate defendants, plaintiff did not identify the specific conduct that allegedly caused damages. Plaintiff sought $999 million in compensatory damages and another $999 million in punitive damages. Although plaintiff did not allege any specific causes of action in his complaint, he stated on a preprinted Civil Case Cover Sheet form that there were 10 causes of action “give or take.” On that form, he also checked the box for “defamation” as the case type that best described his complaint. Plaintiff indicated his action should not be deemed “complex,” but he advised the case would involve a large number of separately represented parties, extensive motion practice, and a substantial amount of documentary evidence. After plaintiff failed to submit a case management statement or appear at a scheduled case management conference, the trial court in February 2021 issued an order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with case management rules and “failure to serve any Defendants.”