Elasali

DISCUSSION

Elasali argues on appeal that Judge Bowman should not have dismissed his case for failure to serve respondents within three years because he had difficulty serving the complaint due to the COVID-19 pandemic; respondents were working remotely and evading service and kept changing addresses; the previously assigned judge (Hon. Keri Katz) told him at a hearing on March 24, 2023 that she would not dismiss the case as long as the defendants were served by September 15, 2023; Elasali did serve the respondents before September 15, 2023; at another hearing on September 15, 2023, Elasali informed Judge Katz the respondents had been served and she “accepted service as it was done within the time she allowed”; Judge Bowman should not have dismissed the case on this ground because Judge Katz had already “solved and settled” the service issue; and Judge Bowman also erred by ignoring Emergency Rule 9 of the California Rules of Court, “which is itself an authority for Covid-19 [t]olling.” Respondents contend that Elasali forfeited any challenge to the dismissal by failing to provide an adequate record on appeal. Specifically, respondents assert that we cannot consider Elasali’s…