Nyawuto v. United Carrier CA2/2

Filed 7/29/14 Nyawuto v. United Carrier CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

KOFI NYAWUTO, B250045

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC472573) v.

UNITED CARRIER, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael L. Stern, Judge. Affirmed.

Kofi Nyawuto, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Bremer, Whyte, Brown & O’Meara, John V. O’Meara, James K. Andrade; Everett L. Skillman for Defendant and Respondent.

___________________________________________________

Appellant argues that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment and prevented him from filing an amended complaint. Because appellant fails to demonstrate that the trial court committed reversible error, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff and appellant Kofi Nyawuto, acting in propria persona, filed suit in October 2011 against Jamison Properties (Jamison), 3255 Wilshire Boulevard, Standard Parking, and Edgar Barrios, as well as 100 Doe defendants. Plaintiff’s form complaint stated a breach of contract cause of action, alleging that defendants breached their contract to provide 24-hour parking access by unlawfully and illegally impounding his car and towing it to an impound yard. In May 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC). The proposed FAC contained 44 purported causes of action, listing the same defendants in the caption. In the body of the proposed FAC, plaintiff identified respondent United Carrier, Inc. (United), a towing company, “as a replacement” for Doe defendant number three. Plaintiff attempted to serve United with the FAC at its business address in August 2012. United filed a motion to quash, arguing that service was improper because it was not directed at United’s agent for service of process, that the FAC did not appear in the trial court’s record, that no Doe amendment form identifying United as a defendant was ever filed, and that no summons on the FAC, or any summons mentioning United, was ever issued. On October 1, 2012, Jamison and other defendants filed an ex parte application to continue the trial and related dates. In ruling on the application, the trial court stated that it had granted plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the FAC in June 2012, but that plaintiff did not comply with the court’s order because he never actually filed the FAC. The court found that because the FAC was never filed, it was untimely, and the case would proceed on the original complaint. The court continued the trial and related deadlines.