Zainalizadeh v. City of Mill Valley CA1/2

Filed 6/6/14 Zainalizadeh v. City of Mill Valley CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

MOHTARAM MOTI ZAINALIZADEH, Plaintiff and Appellant, A137824 v. CITY OF MILL VALLEY, (Marin County Super. Ct. No. CIV 1201091) Defendant and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION Mohtaram Moti Zainalizadeh (appellant) filed a complaint against the City of Mill Valley (the City), alleging an unspecified intentional tort. The trial court sustained two demurrers by the City, the second without leave to amend, finding that appellant failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action against the City. In this appeal from the judgment, appellant, who has acted in pro per throughout this litigation, does not dispute that the City’s demurrer to her amended complaint was properly sustained, but she does contend that the trial court erred by denying her leave to amend. We reject this contention and affirm the judgment. II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 6, 2012,1 appellant filed a form complaint alleging that the City committed an “Intentional Tort,” and prayed for compensatory and punitive damages in the amount of $5 million. She checked boxes on the form complaint to allege that she

1 Unless otherwise stated all date references are to the 2012 calendar year.

1

suffered damages for hospital and medical expenses, property damage, and loss of earning capacity. Under the heading “Other damage,” appellant added allegations that she suffered invasion of privacy, mental and emotional distress, humiliation, and disability discrimination. Appellant also checked a box to indicate that she “has complied with applicable claims statutes.” But the complaint did not set forth any allegations about when, where, or via whom the alleged “intentional tort” occurred. On May 2, the City filed a demurrer to the complaint on the grounds that appellant failed to state facts sufficient to state a cause of action (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e)), and that the complaint was uncertain (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f)). The City also moved to strike appellant’s request for punitive damages on the ground that a public entity is immune from a claim for punitive damages. (See Gov. Code, § 818.) On July 27, appellant filed a pleading with the handwritten title “Answer” written above a typed caption which stated “All Causes of Action/Intentional Torts.” That Answer may have been intended as an opposition to the City’s demurrer, but it is extremely confusing and often incoherent. For example, appellant referred to non- existent statutes, including “Gov. Penal Code 637.5.” She also invoked a variety of legal terms (including perjury, discrimination, invasion of privacy and fraud) without providing any factual nexus. Appellant attached several exhibits to her Answer, many of which contain indecipherable handwritten passages. She described Exhibit A to her Answer as a copy of her “Original Claim Form against the City.” That three-page exhibit consists of two versions of what appears to be a standard form for making a claim against the City. The forms were completed mostly in handwriting and signed by appellant. According to the information provided, appellant was apparently complaining about an incident that occurred on the morning of July 11, 201l. Appellant was taking a shower at the Mill Valley Recreation Center when a manager at the center and two male police officers entered the shower area, accused her of violating a three-minute time limit for taking showers, and directed her to leave the facility. Appellant stated that she is a “Muslim