Grayton v. Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee CA4/1

Filed 12/16/25 Grayton v. Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

MAURICE GRAYTON, D084527

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2022- 00048669-CU-CR-CTL) METROPOLITAN AREA ADVISORY COMMITTEE et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert C. Longstreth, Judge. Affirmed. Deferred portion of motion to augment granted. Maurice Grayton, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Brockman Quayle Bennett, Robert H. Quayle IV, and Rachel B. Kushner, for Defendants and Respondents. Maurice Grayton appeals the judgment dismissing his lawsuit after the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer filed by Defendants Metropolitan Area Advisory Committee on Anti-Poverty of San Diego County, Inc., Arnulfo Manriquez, Sharon A. Turner, Nikki, and Marisol

Tipez. Resolving the matter by memorandum opinion (see generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847), we affirm. I. A. Grayton’s claims all relate to his inability to visit a friend and extended family member while she completed court-ordered residential drug or alcohol treatment. One of the Defendants told Grayton extended family members could visit after a 30-day waiting period, a representation Grayton asserts was untrue. Even after the 30-day waiting period, Grayton was not permitted to visit, which he claims exacerbated his posttraumatic stress disorder, raised his blood pressure, and caused other physical ailments. Grayton also alleges the person he wanted to visit was relocated to a different facility at one point, and the longer commute to try to see her at that location caused him “more hardship.” In the operative second amended complaint, Grayton asserts eleven causes of action for (1) “intentional deceit and misrepresentation of a material fact with knowledge of falsity”; (2) negligent misrepresentation; (3) negligence per se; (4) civil assault; (5) negligence; (6) negligent hiring, retaining, supervising, directing, and controlling; (7) violation of Civil Code sections 2330 through 2339; (8) violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51 et seq.); (9) racial discrimination; (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (11) “negligent intentional infliction of emotional distress.” (Capitalization and bolding omitted.) B. After giving Grayton the opportunity to amend some causes of action in an earlier complaint, the trial court sustained Defendants’ demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend. Given that ruling, the