Elasali v. Regents of the U. of Cal. CA4/1

Filed 1/20/26 Elasali v. Regents of the U. of Cal. CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

NOUREDDINE ELASALI, D084363

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2020- 00019438-CU-MM-CTL) v.

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Marcella O. McLaughlin, Judge. Affirmed. Noureddine Elasali, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Cole Pedroza, Kenneth R. Pedroza and Nathan J. Novak; Lotz Doggett & Rawers, Lauren E. Hardisty and Sara R. Sabzerou for Defendant and Respondent. Noureddine Elasali appeals from an order of dismissal following his failure to file a second amended complaint (SAC). Elasali contends he “had good cause to request [the] case off calendar” due to his ongoing medical symptoms that prevent him from representing himself or amending his

complaint, as the trial court ordered. Elasali additionally contends that the court’s order for monetary sanctions constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment” under the 8th Amendment, and that the court’s refusal to help him acquire “documents to retain [an] attorney” violates his 14th Amendment right to equal protection. We reject these contentions. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Elasali filed the underlying action in June 2020. Elasali served the Regents of the University of San Diego (Regents) with his complaint and summons only after the trial court afforded him considerable latitude in extending the service deadline. The Regents demurred, and the court sustained the demurrer on uncertainty grounds with leave to amend. Elasali filed his first amended complaint (FAC) in early 2023. In the FAC, Elasali alleged that the Regents caused the wrongful death of his mother and engaged in related elder abuse. He sought damages on claims of negligence per se, trespass to chattels, and fraud. The Regents demurred and moved to strike portions of the FAC. The trial court again sustained the demurrer with leave to amend and set a deadline for Elasali to file and serve the SAC. The court also granted Elasali’s request to stay the case to allow him to recover from his illness. In late 2023, prior to Elasali’s deadline to file and serve the SAC, he moved for an additional stay, claiming his medical condition had worsened. The trial court denied this request, finding he failed to show “good cause” for a further continuance. Elasali then failed to file and serve his SAC by the court-ordered deadline. In response, the court set an order to show cause hearing on why it should not accordingly dismiss the action. Before the order to show cause hearing, Elasali filed another request to stay the action, this time attaching a letter from a nurse practitioner. The