Pauley v. Richmond Police Dept. CA1/3

Filed 4/30/14 Pauley v. Richmond Police Dept. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

MARILYN PAULEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, A139319 v. RICHMOND POLICE DEPARTMENT, (Contra Costa County Super. Ct. No. MSC1200932) Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Marilyn Pauley appeals from a judgment dismissing her complaint against the Richmond Police Department (department). Because Pauley has presented no cognizable or intelligible legal argument challenging the judgment, we dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Pauley filed an in propria persona (pro. per.) complaint against the department on April 13, 2012 asserting claims of discrimination, unfair business practices, and fraud. The gravamen of her complaint is that the department discriminated against her by having her car towed on April 5, 2010. A police report attached to the complaint reflects that Pauley’s car was towed because the vehicle’s registration had expired more than six months earlier. (See Veh. Code, § 22651, subd. (o)(1)(A).) Pauley alleged that the person who ordered her car towed was rude and did not follow standard procedures, which she claimed required giving her 72-hours notice before the car could be towed. She alleged that the department discriminated against her because of her race and because

1

of the geographical location where the car was parked. She sought damages totaling $100,000. The department filed a demurrer on the ground the complaint failed to state a cause of action. In February 2013, the trial court sustained the department’s demurrer with leave to amend. One of the grounds for sustaining the demurrer was that the complaint failed to allege that Pauley had filed a timely government tort claim before filing her lawsuit, as required by Government Code section 900 et seq. The court granted Pauley 45 days after service of its order sustaining the demurrer to file and serve an amended complaint. Pauley did not file an amended complaint. Instead, on March 20, 2013, she filed a document entitled “RESPONSE TO DEMURRER LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT VALID CAUSE OF ACTION.” Her “response” contained additional detail about the towing incident and included an allegation that she filed a government tort claim against a “State Government Agency” on October 4, 2012. She further claimed she filed a government tort claim against the City of Richmond on March 19, 2013 after she was informed that the city is not a state government agency. On April 26, 2013, the department filed a motion to dismiss and a separate motion for judgment on the pleadings. In the motion to dismiss, the department contended the action should be dismissed with prejudice because Pauley had failed to file an amended complaint or any other procedurally permissible pleading in response to the court’s order sustaining the demurrer with leave to amend. In support of its motion for judgment on the pleadings, the department argued, among other things, that Pauley’s complaint was barred for failure to file a timely government tort claim with the City of Richmond. The department pointed out that Pauley had expressly admitted in her “response” to the order sustaining the demurrer that she did not file a government tort claim until after she commenced her lawsuit against the department, which was well over one year after the department allegedly discriminated against her by towing her car. The trial court granted the department’s motion to dismiss as well as its motion for judgment on the pleadings. This appeal followed.