Vaught v. Los Angeles Community College Dist. CA2/2

Filed 3/3/16 Vaught v. Los Angeles Community College Dist. CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

RONALD LEE VAUGHT, B261931

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC544421) v.

LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Michael L. Stern, Judge. Affirmed.

Ronald Lee Vaught, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Office of General Counsel, Los Angeles Community College District, Kevin D. Jeter, Anne L. Diga and Eric C. Kim, for Defendants and Respondents.

* * *

Plaintiff-appellant Ronald Lee Vaught (Vaught) appeals the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer to his complaint against defendant-respondent Los Angeles 1 Community College District (District) without leave to amend. We conclude the court’s order was correct and affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We have attempted to piece together what happened in this case from the parties’ briefs and from the portions of the record Vaught designated on appeal. Vaught was a student at Los Angeles Valley College (the College), one of the District’s colleges. At some point, he wrote the following message on a campus sidewalk with washable chalk: “USA Constitutional Amendments revision 2012 copywrited [sic] gender balanced by Ronald lee and Angela Marie Vaught”. He was consequently suspended from the College following a hearing. Vaught thereafter sued the District for compensatory and punitive damages. He used a form complaint, and left blank all of the boxes specifying which cause of action he was bringing. He added no facts to the form. The District demurred, and the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend because “[t]he [c]omplaint is devoid of facts.” After the trial court entered judgment for the District, Vaught timely appealed. DISCUSSION I. Waiver Vaught’s opening and reply briefs contain no recitation of pertinent facts or the case’s procedural history, contain no legal analysis, and do not cite the record; instead, his briefs largely set forth pleading allegations that appear nowhere in Vaught’s complaint. These defects are significant enough to constitute a waiver of Vaught’s