Riverside Superior Court Indio Family law division initiates new vexatious policy to harass pro per litigants. OSC set without filed OSC TO STRIKE RESPONDENT’S PLEADINGS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY.

Department 2 J has two family law matters on calendar on 8/13/2015. Both matters have been set without a filed Order to Show Cause and without the mandatory notice required by law. The hearings are to address why the respondent’s pleadings should not be struck for failure to comply.

In one case a judgment is already on file with the court, suggesting that all issues have been finally addressed.

The CA constitution mandates an opportunity to be heard with the required notice as due process is strictly applied. Due process, as required by the California Constitution, is expansive: its protections extends potentially to any statutorily conferred benefit, whether or not it can be properly construed as a liberty or property interest, (People v. Ramirez (1979) 25 Cal.3d 260, 263-264.) When an individual is deprived of such a benefit, due process analysis under California law focuses not on the precise characterization of the benefit but simply on what process is constitutionally required given the governmental and private interests at issue. (Ibid.; Ryan, supra, at p. 1069.) California due process protections derive primarily from the individual’s right to be free from arbitrary adjudicative procedures in and of themselves, regardless of the precise nature of the interest at stake. (See Ramirez, supra, at p. 267; Ryan, supra, at p. 1070.)”, [citation] 420 CAREGIVERS, LLC v. City of Los Angeles, 2012, 207 Cal. App. 4Th 703 143 Cal. Rptr. 3D 754,

The hearings appear to harass the parties in this case as there is no relevance to striking pleadings in a family law case when there is already a judgment on file and there are no money issues to be decided with a monetary award in the form of a monetary judgment.

Terminating sanctions are usually used in civil law cases when the other party has repeatedly failed to comply with a mandatory order to compel in discovery issues.

The new procedure that has been initiated by the Riverside Superior Court is not only malicious it fails to adhere to any minimum due process requirements under the law and has no legal relevance.





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s