Mood v. City of Newport Beach CA4/3

Filed 3/24/26 Mood v. City of Newport Beach CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

IVIN MOOD,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G065167

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2023- 01332356) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH et al., OPINION Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre De La Cruz, Judge. Affirmed. Ivin Mood, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Jones Mayer, Scott Wm. Davenport and Bruce C. Gridley for Defendant and Respondent City of Costa Mesa. KER Legal Group, Keith E. Rodenhuis and Rodger S. Greiner for Defendant and Respondent City of Newport Beach.

Plaintiff, a self-represented party, appeals from an order issued 1 by the trial court on January 6, 2025 denying two motions filed by plaintiff. Plaintiff has failed to show any error by the trial court, and we see none. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff filed his complaint in the underlying action on June 23, 2023. On January 6, 2025, the trial court issued a minute order denying two motions by plaintiff. Plaintiff did not appear at the hearing on the motions. The first motion was entitled “Plaintiff’s Petition to Amend Motion for Fraud on the Court Under Rule 60, with Motion for Nonsuit Under Cal. Civ. Proc. Section 581c” (Motion to Amend), pursuant to which plaintiff sought to “amend[] his errant motion for (PLD-C-001) fraud on the court, under Rule 60, while the court makes its determination to transfer the case to the appellate court, where the petition may also be transferred.” The court denied the motion on the grounds it was unclear what relief plaintiff was seeking, the motion was unsupported by legal authority and argument, there had been no jury trial that would make a motion for nonsuit applicable, and to the extent plaintiff was seeking reconsideration of an earlier ruling by the trial court, the motion did not satisfy the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008. The second motion filed by plaintiff was to set aside a default judgment entered on January 22, 2024, as void and improperly entered