City of Sacramento v. Altstatt CA3

Filed 5/18/22 City of Sacramento v. Altstatt CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, C092141

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 34201500184866CUMCGDS) v.

DANIEL JAMES ALTSTATT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Daniel James Altstatt appeals from a default judgment entered against him in plaintiff City of Sacramento’s (City) action for civil penalties and injunctive relief based on a public nuisance. The City asserts defendant’s appeal should be dismissed because he fails to comply with fundamental appellate requirements. Although defendant’s briefing is flawed, we will nevertheless address his arguments. Defendant, representing himself, now contends (1) the civil penalties imposed were constitutionally excessive in violation of the Eighth Amendment, (2) reversal is

1

necessary based on accusations defendant makes against the City and the trial court, (3) the trial court violated his due process rights, and (4) the trial court abused its discretion by not setting aside the default judgment. Concluding that defendant’s contentions lack merit, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Defendant owned residential property in Sacramento, which he maintained in a manner that created a severe public nuisance. In 2014, the City began enforcement efforts to require defendant to remedy multiple code violations, but defendant did not take the necessary actions. Instead, defendant insisted that the City cease its code enforcement activities. After further unproductive enforcement efforts, the City filed a complaint in 2015 based on public nuisance, seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief. Defendant was personally served. Defendant filed numerous requests, demands, objections, motions, and notices in response to the complaint. Twice, defendant attempted to remove the action to federal court, and in each instance the case was remanded to the state trial court. Despite defendant’s many filings, he never answered the City’s complaint. On February 1, 2018, defendant’s default was entered. Twenty months later, on October 29, 2019, defendant filed a motion to set aside the default. He asserted (1) the default was void because the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, (2) the City failed to file a timely request for default, (3) the City failed to obtain a timely default judgment, (4) there was extrinsic mistake, and (5) the default was harsh and unfair under federal law. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to set aside the default. It concluded (1) the trial court had personal jurisdiction over defendant, (2) the rule concerning a timely request for default does not provide for setting aside a default properly entered, (3) the rule concerning obtaining a timely default judgment does not provide for setting aside a default properly entered, (4) defendant presented no valid argument concerning extrinsic