Q: What controls exist to ensure case is decided on merits, not on artificial delays and mockery?

A: Skilled navigation of the case and proceeding to trial.

A: Under California law, there are several controls in place to help ensure that cases are decided on their merits rather than being derailed by artificial delays or mockery of pro per (self-represented) plaintiffs by the defense:

1. Code of Civil Procedure § 128(a): This law gives judges the authority to control the proceedings to ensure the orderly conduct of the court's business. Judges can use this power to curtail frivolous objections, delays, or mockery by the defense.

2. California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1590: This rule states that the court must hear summary judgment motions at the earliest practicable time. This helps prevent the defense from unnecessarily delaying the case.

3. Code of Civil Procedure § 2023.010: This law prohibits the misuse of the discovery process, including using it to cause unnecessary delay or needlessly increase litigation costs. If the defense engages in such conduct, the court can impose sanctions.

4. Judicial discretion: Judges have broad discretion to manage cases and ensure fairness. They can set deadlines, limit the scope and duration of discovery, and take other steps to keep the case moving forward on the merits.

5. Appellate review: If a pro per plaintiff believes the trial court has allowed the defense to engage in unfair tactics, they can seek relief from a higher court through a writ or an appeal.

Additionally, under Evidence Code § 140, evidence can include circumstantial evidence that is convincing and clear, as well as actual records and tests. The court should consider all admissible evidence when deciding the case on its merits.

While these controls exist, it's important to note that navigating the legal system as a pro per plaintiff can still be challenging. Seeking assistance from legal aid organizations or pro bono attorneys may help level the playing field.