Rushing v. Geissler CA1/5

Filed 8/29/13 Rushing v. Geissler CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

OLLIE P. RUSHING,

Plaintiff and Appellant, A135764

v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG10536566) AMY LYNN GEISSLER et al.,

Defendants and Respondents. _________________________________/

Ollie P. Rushing (plaintiff) sued defendants Amy Lynn Geissler, Shyloui Jacquez Crooks, and Mason Securities Services, Inc. (collectively defendants) in propria persona for motor vehicle negligence. The court granted defendants’ nonsuit motion, concluding plaintiff failed to present sufficient admissible evidence to support the complaint’s allegations. It also dismissed the complaint as a terminating sanction for plaintiff’s failure to comply with various court orders and with Alameda County Superior Court Local Rules. The court entered judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals in propria persona. In his one-page argument, plaintiff contends the judgment should be reversed because “[he] accepted two [Code of Civil Procedure

1

section 998]1 offers to settle the case” and claims this court should enter judgment in his favor “in the amount of those offers.” We decline to do so and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed a form complaint in propria persona against defendants, alleging motor vehicle negligence arising out of a car accident on westbound Interstate 580. After plaintiff failed to respond to Crooks and Mason Security Services, Inc.’s (Crooks and Mason) requests for admission, the court deemed admitted the following facts: (1) Crooks and Mason were not negligent; (2) the accident giving rise to the lawsuit was not a substantial factor in causing damages to plaintiff; (3) plaintiff did not incur any damages as a result of the accident; and (4) the lawsuit failed to state a claim against Crooks and Mason. On January 4, 2012, Crooks and Mason served plaintiff with a section 998 offer to compromise for $501. The offer to compromise stated, “[t]his offer must be accepted prior to commencement of trial or within (30) days after it is made, whichever occurs first, otherwise it is withdrawn.” On January 11, 2012, Geissler served plaintiff with a section 998 offer to compromise for $6,638.77. Geissler’s offer to compromise similarly stated, “[t]his offer must be accepted prior to commencement of trial or within (30) days after it is made, whichever occurs first, otherwise it is withdrawn.” Plaintiff did not appear at the pretrial conference on January 27, 2012, and did not submit the papers required by Local Rule 3.35 (Rule), including a witness and exhibit list, or proposed jury instructions. The court ordered plaintiff to appear and show cause (OSC) why sanctions should not be imposed for his failure to appear at the pretrial conference and for his failure to comply with Rule 3.35 and “orders issued by the court.” The court later continued the OSC hearing and trial. On January 26, 2012, plaintiff accepted Crooks and Mason’s section 998 offer by signing his name under the words, “[t]his offer is hereby accepted.” Plaintiff served the “Offer to Compromise and Acceptance of Offer to Compromise” on defendants’