Court Opinion

ID: 9398748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-01 00:03:45.165065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:36.052490
License: Public Domain

Filed 5/31/23 Hudson v. Debow CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 ARCHER HUDSON,

          Plaintiff and Appellant,                                       E078375

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. CIVDS1714152)

 D'ARTAGNAN NATHAN DEBOW et                                              OPINION
 al.,

          Defendants and Respondents.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Bryan Foster,

Judge. Affirmed.

         Archer Hudson, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

         La Follette, Johnson, De Haas, Fesler & Ames, Dennis K. Ames, Michael D. Reid,

Melissa E. Fischer, Stephen J. Guichard for Defendants and Respondents Lester Mohr,

M.D. and Jeff Quigley, M.D.

                                                             1
       Plaintiff and appellant Archer Hudson (Plaintiff) appeals from the order issued by

the trial court entered on November 16, 2021, dismissing his Third Amended Complaint

(TAC) as to non-appearing defendants. Plaintiff filed suit against Loma Linda University

Health (Loma Linda), Kaushik Mukherjee, M.D. and DOES 1 through 30 for medical

negligence stemming from a laparoscopic sigmoidectomy surgery performed on his

bowels to remove blockages. Plaintiff claimed that as a result of Dr. Mukherjee’s

negligence during surgery and postoperative care rendered by staff at Loma Linda, he

suffered kidney damage, incontinence and erectile dysfunction (ED). The trial court

granted the motion for summary judgment brought by Loma Linda and Dr. Mukherjee,

the only responding defendants, on the ground that Plaintiff had failed to establish a

triable issue of fact on his medical negligence claim. Plaintiff appealed and this court

upheld the trial court’s ruling in Archer Hudson v. Loma Linda University Health (April

29, 2021, E073636), [non.pub opinion] (Opinion).)

       The trial court addressed the remaining defendants named in the TAC by issuing

an order to show cause that the TAC would be dismissed against all non-appearing

defendants unless Plaintiff showed proof of service on the remaining defendants. These

other defendants that are the subject of the instant appeal are D’Artagnan Debow M.D.,

Patricia Dawley, Linneta Tasker, Lester Mohr, M.D. and Jeff Quigley, M.D.

(collectively, Defendants).1 The trial court dismissed the TAC against Defendants based

on Plaintiff failing to properly serve them within three years as required by Code of Civil

       1 We note that Dr. Quigley and Dr. Mohr are the only defendants who filed a
response in this appeal.

                                             2
Procedure section 583.210. The trial court also denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file

a fourth amended complaint.

       On appeal, Plaintiff contends (I) summary judgment was improper as to Melissa

Sasse, Shandra Slate and Dolores Wright; (II) Defendants carried out concealment-fraud

on the court; (III) Plaintiff’s case was never heard on its merits due to concealment and

fraud; (IV) Plaintiff was not given due process of law and a fair hearing; (V) Defendants

committed acts of RICO racketeering; (VI) He was denied a medical expert; (VII) It was

impossible for Plaintiff to find a medical expert to oppose summary judgment; (VIII)

synergism; (IX) his is a case of first impression; (X) his civil rights as to Medicare/as a

medical recipient were interfered with; (XI) the doctrine of respondeat superior requires

he be allowed to appeal the denial of his motion to file a fourth amended complaint; (XII)

Defendants did not comply with the standard of care; and (XIII) any delays in his service

of process should be forgiven.

                      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       A.      FACTUAL HISTORY2

       Plaintiff, who was 71 years old at the time, went to Loma Linda on June 25, 2016,

complaining of abdominal pain and that he had not had a bowel movement for four days.

A CT scan of his abdomen was requested and revealed a narrowing of the sigmoid colon

with distention of the proximal colon. On June 28, 2016, he underwent a laparoscopic

sigmoidectomy with primary anastomosis and lysis of adhesions. Surgery was performed

       2   We provide only a brief summary of the facts taken from the Opinion.

                                              3
by Dr. Mukherjee and he was assisted by Dr. D’Artagnan Debow. Dr. Mukherjee

summarized the surgery, which included the use of an endo GIA stapler. The first load

misfired and resulted in the bowel being cut. The cut was fixed and there were no further

complications. Immediately after the surgery, regular bowel function took time to

normalize. When Plaintiff regained normal bowel function, he was ready to be

discharged. He was on a regular diet at the time of his discharge on July 12, 2016, and

was given wound care instructions. Home health care would be provided to help with

wound care. He was to return for an appointment in one week.

       On July 20, 2016, Plaintiff had a follow-up appointment. He was doing well and

did not complain of any complications. He had a home-health nurse who continued to

care for his wound and it was recommended that he be provided continued wound care.

He was prescribed additional Oxycodone for pain. The incision wound was healing and

he was having regular bowel movements. He had another appointment on August 3,

2016. Plaintiff had no specific complaints. He had no problems with the wound. Bowel

movements had been loose to solid. He was eating well. The Oxycodone prescription

was refilled.

       On August 17, 2016, seven weeks after the surgery, Plaintiff complained at a

follow-up appointment of alternating diarrhea and constipation. He occasionally had

shooting pains in his abdomen. It was recommended he stop taking the Oxycodone as a

possible side effect was alternating diarrhea and constipation.

       On September 7, 2016, at a follow-up appointment, Plaintiff reported he was

eating a regular diet without any problems. His incision was completely healed and his

                                             4
pain was controlled without medication. No further home health care was required.

Plaintiff reported episodes of incontinence since the surgery but stated he had

experienced intermittent bowel incontinence following a stroke six years prior. Plaintiff

had expected it to be better after the surgery.

       B.     PROCEDURAL HISTORY

              1.     THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

       Plaintiff’s original complaint was filed on July 25, 2017. Plaintiff named Loma

Linda, Dr. Mukherjee and DOES 1 through 30. The original complaint was dismissed

without prejudice and leave to amend after Loma Linda and Dr. Mukherjee filed a

demurrer. Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint on December 12, 2017. He named

Loma Linda, Dr. Mukherjee and DOES 1 through 30. The demurrer filed by Loma Linda

and Dr. Mukherjee to the second amended complaint was sustained in part and overruled

in part, with leave to amend. On April 3, 2018, the second amended complaint was filed

naming Loma Linda, Dr. Mukherjee and DOES 1 through 30. A demurrer filed by Loma

Linda and Dr. Mukherjee was sustained on July 12, 2018, with leave to amend.

       On August 9, 2018, Plaintiff filed the TAC against Loma Linda, Dr. Mukherjee

and DOES 1 through 30. He insisted that as a result of the surgery, he had kidney

damage, incontinence of bladder and bowel and ED. Plaintiff’s causes of action included

negligence, intentional misrepresentation, “res ipsa loquiter” and negligent

misrepresentation. He named the parties as follows: Loma Linda, Dr. Mukherjee, Dr.

                                              5
Debow, Dr. Mohr, Dr. Quigley3, Shaunda Slaght (RN) and Dawley. Plaintiff alleged he

had added Dr. Quigley as DOE 3 on July 10, 2018, and Dr. Mohr as DOE 2 on the same

date.

        On August 9, 2018, he made amendments to the TAC naming Slaght as DOE 11

and Dawley as DOE 12. He filed further amendments on September 4, 2018, naming

Dolores Wright as DOE 13, Linnetta Tasker as DOE 14, and Melissa Sasse as DOE 15.

He provided proof of service for the amendments to the TAC filed on August 9, 2018.

He served the TAC on attorney “M Fischer LaFollette Johnson.”4 Plaintiff also served

the amendments adding DOES 13 through 15 on Fischer.

        A demurrer to the TAC was apparently filed by Loma Linda and Dr. Mukherjee.

It was sustained as to the second and third causes of action. The only remaining cause of

action against the named defendants was medical negligence.

        3The record also shows Dr. Quigley referred to as “Do” but this designation
appears to be the type of medicine he practices and not his name. As such, when there is
reference to Do in the record, we will presume it is to Dr. Quigley.

        4 This appears to reference Melissa E. Fischer who was an attorney employed by
the law firm LaFollette, Johnson, DeHaas, Fessler and Ames (hereinafter, LaFollette).
LaFollette has represented several of the defendants throughout this case.

                                            6
              2.     SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION ON TAC, RULING AND FIRST

                     APPEAL5

       Loma Linda and Dr. Mukherjee, who were represented by LaFollette, filed their

notice of motion and motion for summary judgment on the TAC on March 29, 2019

(Motion). The Motion was based on the fact that defendants complied with the standard

of care required with respect to Plaintiff’s care and to a reasonable degree of medical

probability, no act or omission by any of the defendants caused or contributed to

Plaintiff’s injuries. The Motion was based on the declaration of Dr. Moses J. Fallas, the

undisputed material facts and documentary evidence. Loma Linda and Dr. Mukherjee

argued the declaration from Dr. Fallas supported that the care and treatment of Plaintiff

was within the standard of care.

       Plaintiff filed opposition to the Motion. He also provided his own separate

statement of undisputed material facts and exhibits. Plaintiff objected to Dr. Fallas’s

declaration because he was not present during the surgery, his opinions were hearsay and

he was not qualified. Plaintiff essentially repeated the facts and allegations from the

TAC. Plaintiff’s legal argument in the opposition was confusing, raising issues of

respondeat superior and res ipsa loquiter. In conclusion, Plaintiff claimed the attached

exhibits demonstrated a triable issue of fact that Loma Linda and their medical personnel

       5 The record in this case contains some of the same documents submitted in case
No. E073636. Plaintiff has requested that we take judicial notice of the case. We will
take judicial notice of the record in the previous case. We will draw the facts of the
proceedings pertaining to the Motion and opposition filed by Plaintiff from our prior
Opinion.

                                             7
did not comply with the standard of care and that he suffered injuries. He requested that

the court deny the Motion. Attached to the opposition, Plaintiff included his own

declaration that he had personal knowledge of the facts and could testify if called as a

witness. He submitted three other exhibits, which include his medical records, laboratory

tests and a postoperative report prepared by Dr. Mukherjee.

       Loma Linda and Dr. Mukherjee filed a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition. They

argued Plaintiff was required to show through the use of expert testimony that they

breached the standard of care and such breach of the standard of care caused his injuries.

Plaintiff had failed to provide an expert or any admissible evidence that would create a

triable issue of fact. The only evidence was the declaration of Dr. Fallas, which provided

that Loma Linda and Dr. Mukherjee complied with the standard of care required in their

treatment of Plaintiff. Plaintiff had failed to prove there was a triable issue of material

fact as to the standard of care and causation.

       The Motion was granted on June 19, 2019. The trial court submitted its ruling on

June 17, 2019, which provided as follows: “After full consideration of the moving papers

and oral argument made by counsel at the time of the hearing, the Court finds that

moving defendants have shown by admissible evidence and reasonable inferences

therefrom that there is no triable issue of fact with respect to defendants. Defendants are

entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law as they complied with the standard of

care in their treatment of plaintiff, Archer Hudson and that no act or omission on their

part caused or contributed to the injury of plaintiff, Archer Hudson.” The Motion was

granted in favor of Loma Linda and Dr. Mukherjee.

                                                 8
       Plaintiff filed his appeal in this court and we issued our Opinion on April 19,

2021. We found that the trial court properly concluded that Plaintiff’s failure to present

an expert was fatal to his claim of medical negligence. We further rejected his other

arguments as not being supported by the record, nor proper reference to the record or

legal authority.

              3.      RESOLUTION OF TAC FOR DEFENDANTS

       Prior to the appeal, an order to show cause was issued regarding dismissal of all

non-appearing defendants and was to be heard on July 25, 2019. The matter was

continued. A predisposition hearing was held on August 14, 2019. The matter was

continued so that Plaintiff could serve the remaining defendants (who were not named).

On October 2, 2019, the matter was again continued in order for Plaintiff to serve the

remaining defendants. The trial court informed Plaintiff that if the remaining parties

were not served prior to the next hearing, scheduled for January 15, 2020, the matter

would be dismissed.

       On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed his motion for leave to file a fourth

amended complaint. He named as defendants Loma Linda and Dr. Mukherjee. He also

named Dr. Debow (DOE 1), Dr. Mohr (DOE 2), Dr. Quigley (DOE 3), Slaght (DOE 11),

Dawley (DOE 12), Wright (DOE 13), Tasker (DOE 14), and Sasse (DOE 15). He

alleged that all of the defendants had concealed discovery making it impossible for him to

prove his case.

                                             9
       Attached to the motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, Plaintiff

provided the proposed fourth amended complaint. Plaintiff also provided a copy of a

letter dated October 10, 2018, from attorney Michael D. Reid, who was an attorney at

LaFollette, which advised Plaintiff that the law firm did not represent or accept service

for Debow, Dr. Mohr, Dr. Quigley, Slaght, Dawley, Wright, Tasker or Sasse. Plaintiff

also attached a letter from Fischer dated December 6, 2019, advising Plaintiff that

LaFollette was now representing Dr. Quigley, Dr. Mohr, Sasse, Wright and Slaght.

Fischer would be filing a responsive pleading to the TAC on their behalf. In addition,

Plaintiff provided a proof of service of the motion for leave to file a fourth amended

complaint, which was served on Michael Reid.

       On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff moved to stay the trial court proceedings pending

the appeal of the Motion. Fischer had filed a demurrer to the TAC on behalf of Sasse,

Slaght and Wright. LaFollette filed opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a

fourth amended complaint on behalf of Slaght, Wright and Sasse.

       On January 15, 2020, the trial court held a hearing. Fischer was present. Plaintiff

represented that Defendants had been served. Plaintiff was given time to file the proofs

of service. On January 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed a proof of service that showed he sent the

TAC to Kent Hansen, who he stated was general counsel for Loma Linda. Plaintiff sent a

notice and acknowledgment of receipt. Plaintiff included stamped envelopes for return of

the signed notice and acknowledgment. Plaintiff named Tasker, Dawley and Debow in

the proof of service. He also submitted another proof of service filed on January 15,

2020. He served it on Fischer. He named Dr. Mohr, Dr. Quigley, Slaght, Wright and

                                             10
Sasse. He served the TAC with a notice and acknowledgment of receipt form and

provided a return envelope.

       On February 11, 2020, the trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the

fourth amendment complaint. The trial court also denied Plaintiff’s request to stay the

proceedings until the appeal was resolved. The matter of dismissal of the non-appearing

defendants and the demurrer to the TAC was continued to March 16, 2020. The matter

was continued several times to August 16, 2021, which was after the Opinion was filed.

       At the August 16, 2021, hearing, the trial court granted a motion for summary

judgment that had apparently been filed on May 14, 2021, for Slaght, Sasse and Wright.

The dismissal of the non-appearing defendants was continued to November 16, 2021.

Judgment on the grant of the summary judgment was signed and filed on September 2,

2021. Notice of entry of judgment was entered on October 7, 2021.

       On October 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed another motion to file a fourth amended

complaint. Plaintiff sought to amend to provide the names of the DOES as follows: Dr.

Debow (DOE 1), Dr. Mohr (DOE 2), Dr. Quigley (DOE 3), Dawley (DOE 12) and

Tasker (DOE 14). Plaintiff insisted that Fischer and LaFollette concealed their

representation of Dr. Quigley and Dr. Mohr. He also filed opposition to the order to

show cause regarding dismissal of the non-appearing defendants and a declaration in

support of his opposition. It was nearly identical to the motion for leave to file the fourth

amended complaint. He insisted his delays were caused by court closures due to Covid

and his own “Covid-like symptoms” for the prior two years. He claimed he had served

                                             11
all named DOES. Once again he attached the letters from Reid and Fischer regarding

representation of the DOES.

        Stephen J. Guichard, an attorney at LaFollette, filed a declaration as amicus curie

in support of the dismissal of Defendants. Guichard declared the TAC had not been

properly served because Fischer had not agreed to accept service. Plaintiff was advised

on October 10, 2018, that LaFollette did not represent DOES 1 through 3, and 11 through

15. Plaintiff was on notice that he needed to properly serve these parties. Plaintiff

instead served a motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint. Plaintiff had never

filed a proof of service as to service of the TAC on Dawley and Tasker. Guichard also

declared that Plaintiff had removed Dr. Quigley, Dr. Debow and Dr. Mohr as parties in

2018.

        The matter was heard on November 16, 2021. Guichard was present and

apparently only represented Loma Linda, Dr. Mukherjee, Sasse, Slaght and Wright.

Plaintiff represented to the trial court that all Defendants had been served. Plaintiff’s

second motion to file the fourth amended complaint was denied.

        The trial court entered the following written ruling: “On January 15, 2020,

Plaintiff filed two Proof of Service by Mail where [he] indicates he served the Summons

on the TAC on Doe Defendants Debow, Mohr, Do [Quigley], Dawley and Tasker by

Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt (2 copies). However, for service to be perfected

by Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt . . . the Acknowledgment must be returned,

signed, and dated, by the defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 415.30, subd. (c).) The Court

file has no executed Acknowledgments from the Non-Appearing Defendants. Thus, the

                                             12
service of the TAC has never been perfected on them. (Tandy Corp. v. Superior Court

(Lekoff) (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 911, 913 . . . .) No other proof of service of Summons

and TAC exists associated with the Non-Appearing Defendants.” The trial court cited to

a case supporting that the summons and complaint must be served within three years of

filing the action. It further stated, “Defendants Debow, Mohr and Do [Quigley] were

named as Does 1-3, respectively on July 10, 2018; Defendant Dawley was named as Doe

12 on August 19, 2018; and Defendant Tasker was named as Doe 14 on September 14,

2018. Three years from the dates they were named are July 10, 2021, August 9, 2021,

and September 14, 2021. This litigation is past those dates without Plaintiff properly

serving any of them. Thus, per Code of Civil Procedure section 583.250, subdivision (a),

since service [was] not completed within 3 years of the Defendant’s naming, the action

shall not be further prosecuted, no further proceedings shall be held, and the action shall

be dismissed by the court whether on its own or by a motion.” The court noted that it

was mandatory to dismiss for delay in prosecution citing to Code of Civil Procedure

section 583.250, subdivision (b). The trial court ordered the TAC be dismissed. Notice

of the dismissal was served on Plaintiff on December 7, 2021.

       On January 12, 2022, Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal. He appealed from a

judgment of dismissal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 581d, 583.250,

583.360 or 583.430 and an order after judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

section 904.1, subdivisions (a)(3) through (13). He chose to proceed without the oral

record.

                                             13
                                      DISCUSSION

       Plaintiff has raised numerous issues on appeal that are either not properly before

this court, not supported by adequate legal authority or argument or are

incomprehensible. As stated by Defendants, the only issue that must be resolved by this

court is if the trial court properly dismissed the TAC on November 16, 2021, on the

grounds that Plaintiff failed to properly serve the TAC on Dr. Quigley, Dr. Mohr, Dr.

Debow, Tasker and Dawley within three years.

       A.     SERVICE OF DEFENDANTS

       Plaintiff addresses the service of process in Argument XIII arguing he served Kent

Hansen, the agent of service of process for Loma Linda, which was ignored; that La

Follette committed concealment and fraud impeding service; and there were numerous

reasons for his delay in serving the TAC.

       Code of Civil Procedure section 583.210, subdivision (a) provides “The summons

and complaint shall be served upon a defendant within three years after the action is

commenced against the defendant. For the purpose of this subdivision, an action is

commenced at the time the complaint is filed.”

       A summons and complaint can be served by mail as follows: “(a) A summons

may be served by mail as provided in this section. A copy of the summons and of the

complaint shall be mailed (by first-class mail or airmail, postage prepaid) to the person to

be served, together with two copies of the notice and acknowledgment provided for in

subdivision (b) and a return envelope, postage prepaid, addressed to the sender.” (Code

Civ. Proc., § 415.30.) Subdivision (c) of Code of Civil Procedure section 415.30

                                            14
provides, “Service of a summons pursuant to this section is deemed complete on the date

a written acknowledgment of receipt of summons is executed, if such acknowledgment

thereafter is returned to the sender.” If such acknowledgment is not received by the

sender, “the party to whom the summons was mailed shall be liable for reasonable

expenses thereafter incurred in serving or attempting to serve the party by another

method permitted by this chapter, and, except for good cause shown, the court in which

the action is pending, upon motion, with or without notice, shall award the party such

expenses whether or not he is otherwise entitled to recover his costs in the action.”

(Ibid.)

          “[I]t is long-settled that methods of service are to be strictly construed.”

(Slaughter v. Legal Process & Courier Service (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 1236, 1251.) The

plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is

the facts requisite to an effective service.” (Coulston v. Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d

866, 868.) “Service of summons in conformance with the mode prescribed by statute is

deemed jurisdictional. Absent such service, no jurisdiction is acquired by the court in the

particular action.” (Sternbeck v. Buck (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 829, 832.) Code of Civil

Procedure section 583.250 provides, “(a) If service is not made in an action within the

time prescribed in this article: [¶] (1) The action shall not be further prosecuted and no

further proceedings shall be held in the action. [¶] (2) The action shall be dismissed by

the court on its own motion or on motion of any person interested in the action, whether

named as a party or not, after notice to the parties. [¶] (b) The requirements of this

                                                15
article are mandatory and are not subject to extension, excuse, or exception except as

expressly provided by statute.”

       Here, the trial court found that the “action commenced” against Dr. Debow, Dr.

Mohr and Dr. Quigley on July 10, 2018; it commenced as to Dawley on August 9, 2018;

and commenced on September 14, 2018, as to Tasker. The dates of service, therefore,

were before July 10, 2021 (for the first three), August 9, 2021, for Dawley, and

September 14, 2021, for Tasker. The trial court found on November 16, 2021, that there

were no proofs of service nor executed acknowledgments of service filed with the court

to show service by mail was completed on Defendants within three years after

commencement of the action. Plaintiff also failed to demonstrate he attempted to serve

Defendants by an alternative method, such as by personal service or publication. As

such, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 583.250 the trial court had to dismiss

the TAC against Defendants.

       Plaintiff claims he served the TAC by mail on Kent Hansen and that LaFollette

committed concealment or fraud by first stating that it did not represent the DOES, then

advising him that it did represent them. He cites as authority for his claim the minute

order from January 15, 2020. That minute order only provides that Plaintiff claimed to

have served Defendants and he was given time to file the proofs of service. He then

refers to a proof of service filed on January 15, 2020. It was addressed to Kent Hansen as

general counsel for Loma Linda. It provided that the TAC was mailed along with

acknowledgements of receipt for Debow, Dawley and Tasker. The other proof of service

                                            16
filed on January 15, 2020, was mailed to Fischer. It also provided that the TAC was

mailed along with acknowledgments of receipt for Dr. Mohr and Dr. Quigley.

       This evidence does not support that Plaintiff complied with Code of Civil

Procedure section 415.30. No signed acknowledgements were filed in the trial court and

no other types of services were attempted on Defendants. Regardless of whether Plaintiff

could properly serve Defendants by serving Fischer or Hansen, he fails to show that he

complied with the directives for service by mail.

       Further, Plaintiff cannot excuse his failure to comply with the directives of Code

of Civil Procedure sections 415.30 and 583.250. Even if he could excuse his failure to

comply, he does not explicate how any delay caused him to be unable to properly serve

Defendants. Plaintiff clearly knew how to conduct service by mail on Fischer and

Hansen during this time. Further, once he did not receive the acknowledgments of

service, as stated in Code of Civil Procedure section 415.30, he was entitled to payment

of the costs of serving Defendants. The cost of trying to personally serve Defendants did

not prevent service and he could hire someone to conduct service. Further, even though

Fischer and Reid represented initially that they did not represent Defendants, Plaintiff

served them with the TAC despite this information. He did not properly execute service

based on the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 415.30. The record

supports the trial court’s ruling that proper service of the TAC was not made on

Defendants and the TAC was mandatorily dismissed.

                                            17
       B.     ADDITIONAL ARGUMENTS MADE ON APPEAL

       Plaintiff has raised 12 other arguments on appeal, as set forth ante, which are

either not cognizable on appeal, are not clear, or he provides no legal authority or

evidentiary support for his argument.

       “In order to demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court with

some cogent argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record.” (City of

Santa Monica v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 286-287.) “[W]e may disregard

conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal authority or fail to

disclose the reasoning by which the appellant reached the conclusions he wants us to

adopt.” (Id. at p. 287.) “An appellant must provide an argument and legal authority to

support his contentions. This burden requires more than a mere assertion that the

judgment is wrong. ‘Issues do not have a life of their own: if they are not raised or

supported by argument or citation to authority, [they are] . . . waived.’ [Citation.] It is

not our place to construct theories or arguments to undermine the judgment and defeat the

presumption of correctness.” (Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th

836, 852.)

       Plaintiff’s Argument I pertains to the grant of the motion for summary judgment in

favor of Sasse, Slaght and Wright. This court ordered on April 11, 2022, that this appeal

is limited to the dismissal of the TAC on November 16, 2021, based on the non-

appearing parties of Dr. Debow, Dr. Mohr, Dr. Quigley, Dawley and Tasker. This court

also ordered on July 29, 2022, that the appeal would not consider the grant of summary

judgment in favor of Sasse, Slaght and Wright. We will not consider the argument.

                                             18
       Plaintiff’s Argument II pertains to the allegation of concealment or fraud by

LaFollette in first denying it represented Defendants and then later notifying Plaintiff it

represented Dr. Mohr, Dr. Quigley, Sasse, Wright and Slaght. Plaintiff also claims that

LaFollette denied him discovery in the case. Plaintiff only provides one case citation and

refers to records that this court excluded by denying his request for judicial notice to

admit the records. As such, he has not supported his claim that he was denied discovery.

Moreover, it is equally plausible that LaFollette only represented Loma Linda and Dr.

Mukherjee at the beginning of the case, and then were hired by Dr. Mohr and Dr.

Quigley. Defendant has failed to show concealment or fraud.

       Defendant claims he should be allowed to appeal the denial of his motion for leave

to file the fourth amended complaint. However, this court dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal

from the motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint on February 28, 2022.

       Plaintiff’s remaining arguments—Arguments III through XII—all fail to provide

any cogent legal argument as to how the claimed errors require reversal of the trial

court’s order on the dismissal of the TAC for failure to properly serve Defendants. In

addition, Plaintiff fails to provide any relevant legal authority to support his claims. He

also makes conclusory statements without any proper legal argument. As a result, these

claims have been waived. (Benach v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at

p. 852.) Plaintiff is not entitled to any special treatment in this regard because of his pro

se status. (See Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984-985.)

                                              19
                                    DISPOSITION

      The judgment is affirmed. As the prevailing parties, Defendants are awarded their

costs on appeal.

      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                     MILLER
                                                                            Acting P. J.

We concur:

SLOUGH
                               J.

FIELDS
                               J.

                                          20