Sales v. City and County of San Francisco CA1/1

Filed 5/12/21 Sales v. City and County of San Francisco CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

JAMES SALES, Plaintiff and Appellant, A156772 v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN (San Francisco County FRANCISCO, Super. Ct. No. CGC-18-570127) Defendant and Respondent.

Appellant James Sales appeals from the judgment issued after the trial court sustained a demurrer filed by respondent, the City and County of San Francisco (City). Appellant asserts the trial court abused its discretion when it sustained the City’s demurrer without giving him an opportunity to amend his original complaint. We agree and reverse. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In September 2018, appellant, acting in pro per, filed a complaint against the City. The complaint was prepared using a Judicial Council of California form provided for optional use in contract cases. The part of the form that describes the cause of action contains check boxes for “Breach of Contract,” “Common Counts,” and “Other (specify).” For the checked “Other” box, appellant wrote “not investigation [sic] my complaint.” Under “Other allegations” he wrote, “[d]id not show in court cover up.” On the civil case

1

information statement filed concurrently with the complaint, he checked the box designating the matter as a civil rights case. Appellant attached two documents to his complaint: a copy of a December 2017 ruling from the City’s Housing Authority addressing the suspension of his Section 8 housing benefits following allegations of drug- related criminal activity and forgery, and a copy of a December 2017 application for leave to present a late claim that references the Housing Authority’s decision and asserts he had been unfairly punished. In October 2018, the City filed a demurrer to the complaint asserting that appellant had failed to plead sufficient facts to state a cause of action, and that the pleading was uncertain and unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) & (f).) The City also argued that appellant should not be afforded leave to amend because he had recently filed three “largely unintelligible” complaints against the City that were later voluntarily dismissed. Appellant did not file an opposition to the City’s demurrer. On November 30, 2018, the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The court’s order does not state the basis for its ruling. Judgment in favor of the City was entered on January 18, 2019. This appeal followed.1