Schneider v. Bank of America CA3

Filed 7/18/23 Schneider v. Bank of America CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Amador) ----

CHRISTOPHER D. SCHNEIDER, C093540

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 19-CVC- 11425) v.

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

Defendants and Respondents.

Christopher D. Schneider appeals from a judgment of dismissal after Bank of America, N.A. and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (together, respondents) successfully demurred to his complaint. He contends we should reverse for four reasons: respondents omitted his ZIP Code in most of their proofs of service, the trial court’s actions in a separate proceeding caused him to be homeless, the trial court committed perjury, and the trial court violated his rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. We affirm.

1

BACKGROUND Schneider sued respondents for, among other things, allegedly breaking into his home, stealing and destroying his possessions, and taking possession of his home. At the top of his complaint, Schneider—who describes himself as homeless—listed his address as “General Delivery,” “Jackson, CA,” with no ZIP Code included. On most of his other filings, Schneider added a ZIP Code. He usually listed 95642, though, on one occasion, he mistakenly listed 95685. Respondents afterward filed a demurrer and motion to strike parts of Schneider’s complaint. In their demurrer, they argued all of Schneider’s causes of action should be dismissed because he failed to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action and because each alleged cause of action was vague and uncertain. They added that one of Schneider’s causes of action, for breach of contract, should also be dismissed because he failed to indicate whether the alleged contract was written, verbal, or implied by conduct. In their proofs of service for the demurrer and motion to strike, respondents used the same mailing address listed on Schneider’s complaint—“General Delivery,” “Jackson, CA,” with no ZIP Code included. But in a later filing titled Notice of Non-Receipt of Opposition to Demurrer and to Motion to Strike, respondents added the 95642 ZIP Code for the City of Jackson. With no filed opposition from Schneider, and following several continuances by the trial court, the trial court granted respondents’ motion to strike and sustained their demurrer without leave to amend. The court later entered judgment in respondents’ favor. Schneider timely appealed. DISCUSSION Schneider urges us to set aside the trial court’s judgment for four reasons. First, he contends reversal is required because the proofs of service for most of respondents’ filings omitted his ZIP Code, reasoning that the omitted ZIP Code “promotes lost and/or undelivered mail.” As covered above, several filings omitted Schneider’s ZIP Code.