Peoples Consumer Protection Services v. Bank of America, N.A. CA5

Filed 4/6/21 Peoples Consumer Protection Services v. Bank of America, N.A. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

PEOPLES CONSUMER PROTECTION SERVICES, F082269

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. CV-20-004085)

v. OPINION BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Stacy Speiller, Judge. Kimbly Arnold, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Severson & Werson, Jan T. Chilton and Kerry W. Franich for Defendants and Respondents. -ooOoo- Plaintiff Kimbly Arnold, doing business as Peoples Consumer Protection Services, filed a verified complaint against defendant Bank of America and one of its tellers, alleging discrimination in violation of the Unruh Civil Rights Act. Bank of America’s

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Snauffer, J.

answer to the complaint alleged that Arnold “became irate and accused [its teller] of discrimination” after the teller began the process of verifying Arnold’s identity in connection with Arnold’s request to deposit a check. Arnold filed a motion to strike this and other allegations in the answer. The trial court denied the motion to strike. Arnold appealed. We conclude the order denying the motion to strike parts of defendants’ answer is not an appealable order. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a).)1 As explained below, we further conclude that the denial of the motion to strike does not present unusual or extraordinary circumstances of the type that justify exercising our discretionary authority to treat an appeal from a nonappealable order as a petition for writ of mandate. We therefore dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND On June 15, 2020, Arnold had difficulty depositing a check at a branch of Bank of America, N.A. located in Modesto. Defendant Susy Vega was the teller who initially handled Arnold’s transaction. The interaction between Arnold and Vega is the subject of this lawsuit.2 In September 2020, Arnold filed a verified complaint against Bank of America and Vega (collectively, defendants), alleging discrimination in violation of the Unruh