Southwick v. Contractors State License Board CA1/2

Filed 1/22/24 Southwick v. Contractors State License Board CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

PAUL J. SOUTHWICK, Plaintiff and Appellant, A161391 v. CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE (Alameda County BOARD, et al., Super. Ct. No. RG-17863164) Defendants and Respondents.

Appellant Paul J. Southwick, representing himself, filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The trial court dismissed the case without prejudice for failure to serve the defendants within three years after the action was commenced. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On June 7, 2017, Southwick filed in Alameda County Superior Court a “Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Sanctions for Bad Faith Actions of Counsel,” naming as defendants the Contractors State License Board (Board), the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), the Department of Consumer Affairs, and various individuals. In the petition, Southwick alleged a citation issued to him by the Board was “unlawfully created, faulty, improperly or improvidently drawn or made, and or is the product of an “ ‘Underground Regulation’ . . . .” (Italics omitted.)

1

On June 14, 2017, Southwick filed a “Certificate of Proof of Service,” in which he declared that, “[p]ursuant to the provisions outlined in C.C.P. 1013(a)(1),” he had mailed a copy of the petition to “the following parties and or persons,” listing the OAH, the Board, the Department of Consumer Affairs, individual Board employees or former employees, an attorney at the Department of Justice, an attorney for the Office of the Attorney General, “One Unknown Doe,” and Richard Laguens.1 On July 14, 2017, the OAH filed a “Notice of Non-Appearance.” The OAH averred that it was “enter[ing] its special appearance” to give notice that it would “not be an active participant in this matter” unless the trial court directed otherwise. It further stated that any request for fees or costs against OAH should be denied under Oksner v. Superior Court (1964) 229 Cal.App.2d 672. On December 10, 2019, Southwick filed a “Dec[l]aratory Response Re: O.S.C. Scheduled For 12-12-2019” (OSC response). The appellate record does not contain an underlying order to show cause, but the OSC response indicates the trial court had issued an order to show cause related to Southwick’s failure to establish “Service of Process/Summons & Complaint.” (Italics omitted.) In the OSC response, Southwick argued, among other things, “The requirement to show proofs and or file the requested documents have been MOOTED by Respondents’ ‘GENERAL APPEARANCE’ as evidenced by the filing of The Attorney General’s ‘First Paper’ on July 14, 2017.” Here, Southwick seems to be referring to the OAH’s special