Mitchell v. William Warren Group CA2/2

Filed 11/21/24 Mitchell v. William Warren Group CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

OLIVER B. MITCHELL III, B335504

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 23STCV10822)

WILLIAM WARREN GROUP, INC.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Cherol Nellon, Judge. Affirmed.

Oliver B. Mitchell III, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Bremer, Whyte, Brown & O’Meara, Kyle P. Carroll, and Sukayna Jaidi for Defendant and Respondent.

****** Oliver B. Mitchell III (plaintiff) argues that the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint with prejudice when he did not file an amended complaint after the court granted him leave to do so following the sustaining of a demurrer. This ruling was not an abuse of discretion, so we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Facts In November 2019, plaintiff signed a monthly rental contract with StorQuest for a 5-foot by 10-foot storage unit. StorQuest is the business name used by William Warren Group, Inc. (the Group). He owed $136 per month. When a Los Angeles city ordinance went into effect in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic that placed a moratorium on evictions, plaintiff stopped paying rent in August 2020. By May 2022, plaintiff owed $3,257 in unpaid rent; by October 2023, that amount had risen to $6,509.15. II. Procedural Background Plaintiff sued the Group in 2022, and the trial court dismissed the operative complaint without prejudice when plaintiff opted not to file an amended complaint after the court sustained a demurrer with leave to amend. Three days after that May 2023 dismissal, plaintiff sued the Group again. Plaintiff’s 119-paragraph complaint (the new complaint) alleged the same eight claims as in the prior lawsuit— namely, (1) sexual harassment under the Unruh Act (Civ. Code, § 51), (2) sex discrimination under the Unruh Act (ibid.), (3) gender