Guy v. Suntrust Bank Holding Co. CA4/3

Filed 1/22/21 Guy v. Suntrust Bank Holding Co. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ANTHONY JOHN GUY,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G058930

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01085457)

SUNTRUST BANK HOLDING OPINION COMPANY,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Craig L. Griffin, Judge. Affirmed. Anthony John Guy, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Wright Finlay & Zak, T. Robert Finlay and Kathryn A. Moorer for Defendant and Respondent. * * *

Plaintiff Anthony John Guy, representing himself, appeals after the court dismissed his case against SunTrust Bank Holding Company (SunTrust). The court sustained a demurrer to Guy’s complaint with leave to amend, but Guy did not file an amended complaint, asserting the demurrer was invalid. SunTrust subsequently applied to dismiss the action with prejudice for failure to amend, and the court granted the application. On appeal, Guy does not seek leave to amend, but continues to argue the demurrer was unauthorized by law, an assertion that is simply inaccurate. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

I FACTS The facts are not particularly relevant to the issue on appeal. Suffice to say that in July 2019, Guy filed a 38-page complaint alleging, among other things, banking fraud. It is difficult to ascertain the factual basis for the complaint, which seems to be mostly a long list of primarily federal statutes and regulations. Guy claimed entitlement to restitution and “criminal sanctions,” for “reinstatement” (of what is not clear) for “treble damages, exemplary damages, whistleblower awards,” punitive damages, and injunctive and declaratory relief. SunTrust, unsurprisingly, filed a demurrer on the grounds that the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to state any cognizable cause of action and was 1 uncertain, citing Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10, subdivisions (e) and (f). The court’s minute order, which reflected the demurrer was unopposed, sustained the demurrer with 30 days’ leave to amend. The minute order reflects Guy was present in court and SunTrust timely served notice of the court’s ruling.