Craig v. Cardona-Morales CA4/1

Filed 10/18/21 Craig v. Cardona-Morales CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SAMUEL C. CRAIG, JR., D077969

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2018- 00049181-CU-FR-CTL) MARIA DEL REFUGIO CARDONA- MORALES et al.

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, John S. Meyer, Judge. Affirmed. Samuel C. Craig, Jr., in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Santa Cardona, Francisco Cardona, Eva Lopez, in pro. per., for Defendants and Respondents Santa Cardona, Francisco Cardona, Eva Lopez. No appearance for Defendants and Respondents Heliodora Craig, Maria del Refugio Cardona-Morales, Marta Cardona, Mary Esther Craig, Jesus Coronado, and Michaela Coronado.

DISCUSSION Plaintiff Samuel C. Craig, Jr. sued the estate of his father’s widow and several members of her family alleging intentional interference with expected inheritance, constructive trust, fraud, and conversion in connection with the

probate of his deceased father’s will.1 The trial court dismissed the lawsuit after finding it was duplicative of a prior lawsuit Craig filed concerning the same subject matter (Super. Ct. No. 37–2015–00010184–CU–MC–CTL). In the prior lawsuit, the trial court rendered judgment against Craig because his claims were time-barred—a judgment this court affirmed on appeal. (Craig v. Cardona (Feb. 8, 2018, D070310) [nonpub. opn.].) Craig appeals the judgment of dismissal. He contends the trial court erred by failing to give him proper notice and an opportunity to contest whether the present lawsuit is in fact duplicative of the prior lawsuit. Additionally, he argues he requested leave to amend the complaint and the trial court erred by denying his alleged amendment request. Defendants Francisco Cardona, Santa Cardona, and Eva Lopez filed a respondent’s brief and the remaining defendants did not do so. We do not treat the failure to file a respondent’s brief as an admission of error; rather, we consider the record and Craig’s arguments to determine whether reversal is required. (In re Marriage of Rifkin & Carty (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1342, fn. 1; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).) When considering Craig’s arguments, we remain mindful that he is a self-represented litigant. However, we treat him the same as any other party and grant him the same consideration as other litigants and attorneys, but no more. (Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247.) “The same rules