Briceno v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. CA2/3

Filed 8/29/22 Briceno v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

RANDY BRICENO, B314222

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV24288) v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Olivia Rosales, Judge. Affirmed. Randy Briceno, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Fisher & Phillips, Aymara Ledezma and Danielle S. Krauthamer for Defendant and Respondent. ——————————

Plaintiff Randy Briceno appeals from the order of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained without leave to amend the demurrer filed by defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo) to Briceno’s fifth amended complaint. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 On July 12, 2019, Briceno, acting in propria persona, initiated this action by filing a civil complaint against Wells Fargo. Briceno then filed a series of amended complaints without seeking leave to amend. The trial court struck all of the pleadings filed by Briceno except for the third amended complaint, which it deemed the operative complaint. On January 15, 2020, Wells Fargo submitted a demurrer to the third amended complaint. Briceno did not file an opposition. On February 19, 2020, the trial court sustained the demurrer to the third amended complaint on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a cause of action and failed to allege sufficient facts to give Wells Fargo notice of its alleged wrongful conduct. The court granted Briceno leave to further amend the complaint. On February 13, 2020, prior to the trial court’s ruling on the demurrer to the third amended complaint, Briceno filed a fifth amended complaint. The body of the fifth amended complaint consisted of a single handwritten paragraph: “The defendant is a corporation. Plaintiff has suffered wage loss & other damages. Plaintiff still is suffering wageloss [sic] & other damages. Specified intentional infliction of emotional distress,