Elasali v. Verdieck CA4/1

Filed 3/19/26 Elasali v. Verdieck CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084171

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2020- 00003544-CU-PN-CTL) LISA JOU VERDIECK et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Blaine K. Bowman, Judge. Affirmed. Noureddine Elasali, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Nemecek & Cole, Michael W. Feenberg, and Mark Schaeffer for Defendants and Respondents. Noureddine Elasali appeals from a judgment dismissing his complaint against respondents Lisa Jou Verdieck, Jennifer M. Caglia, and Vanessa Rios for failure to effectuate service within three years of commencement of the action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 583.250.) We affirm the judgment because Elasali has failed to provide an adequate record on appeal and cannot otherwise demonstrate error.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In January 2020, Elasali sued respondents Verdieck, Caglia, Rios, and others. The record on appeal does not include the complaint but the court minutes indicate it is a professional negligence case. In September 2023, over three years later, Elasali completed service of the summons and complaint on all three respondents by substitute service after unsuccessful efforts to serve them in person. He voluntarily dismissed other defendants from the case without prejudice. In October 2023, Elasali requested and the clerk entered a default against all three respondents. Later in the same month, respondents filed a motion to set aside the default and for mandatory dismissal of the complaint under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.250 for failure to effectuate service within three years. The moving papers (19 pages total according to the register of actions) are not included in the record on appeal. Representing himself, Elasali filed a handwritten opposition to the motion. Respondents filed a reply. The reply papers (36 pages total) are also not included in the record on appeal. On March 22, 2024, Judge Blaine K. Bowman held an unreported hearing on the motion. There is no transcript or settled or agreed statement of this hearing in the record on appeal. According to the minute order, the court heard arguments and then granted the motion for mandatory dismissal of the complaint based on Elasali’s failure to effectuate service within three years. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. Based on this ruling, the court did not decide respondents’ “alternate request to set aside entry of default.”