Lopez v. Court Call CA2/5

Filed 10/16/13 Lopez v. Court Call CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

EMILIANO LOPEZ, B239341

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC455282) v.

COURT CALL, LLC et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Teresa Sanchez-Gordon, Judge. Affirmed. Emiliano Lopez, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Diederich & Associates and Robert E. Henke for Defendants and Respondents.

______________________________

Plaintiff Emiliano Lopez is an inmate housed at the Pleasant Valley State Prison. He was a party to a prior family law action, in which he did not prevail, after failing to appear telephonically through Court Call, LLC. Lopez filed the current action against defendants Court Call and its employee Yudit Lara, alleging causes of action for the intentional tort of making a disparaging statement about Lopez to prison authorities and for negligence that resulted in Lopez missing an appearance in the family law case. Lopez’s complaint sought compensatory and punitive damages. Lopez’s action was set for case management conferences on June 15, September 29, November 15, 2011, and January 23, 2012. Lopez failed to appear in person or telephonically at any of the conferences, causing the trial court to issue and reissue orders to show cause re dismissal. The court ultimately dismissed the action without prejudice following Lopez’s failure to appear at the case management conference on January 23, 2012. On January 31, 2012, Lopez filed a request for rehearing and appointment of counsel. Lopez’s request relied on the prison authorities’ repeated failure to allow him access to an institutional telephone and the trial court’s denial of his requests for court ordered access to a prison telephone. The request was rejected for failure to follow applicable court rules. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.