Hill v. Simon CA2/3

Filed 12/13/13 Hill v. Simon CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

CHARLES E. HILL, B247668

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC489611) v.

BURNIS SIMON et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, John Shepard Wiley, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Charles E. Hill, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

No appearances by Defendants and Respondents.

_____________________

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and appellant Charles E. Hill appeals an order dismissing his action with prejudice. The trial court entered the order after Hill failed to appear at a hearing set pursuant to an order to show cause (OSC) regarding dismissal and sanctions. We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Hill’s case. FACTS On August 6, 2012, Hill filed a complaint against Burnis Simon, Herbert Hafif, the Law Offices of Herbert Hafif (law firm), and the Hafif Family Foundation. The complaint alleges that Hill worked as an employee of the law firm in a building owned by Hafif and managed by Simon. It further alleges that Hill was exposed to airborne asbestos while working in the building and that defendants concealed this exposure. Based on these allegations, the complaint purports to set forth a class action for battery, premises liability and fraud.1 On the same day he filed the complaint, Hill filed a sworn declaration in support of his objection to the judge handling the case. Hill stated in his declaration: “No matter who is assigned this case in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the Judge assigned is disqualified from hearing this case or performing any action other than filing a recusal.” Most of Hill’s declaration was incoherent.2 As best as we can decipher, Hill argued that all judges of the superior court had a conflict of interest because they received compensation from both the state and the county.