Bolton v. Guerrero CA1/2

Filed 12/27/23 Bolton v. Guerrero CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

A. BOLTON, A167099 Plaintiff and Appellant, v. (Alameda County JUAN CARLOS GUERRERO, Super. Ct. No. 21CV001408)

Defendant and Respondent.

A. Bolton filed a lawsuit against Juan Carlos Guerrero and other defendants alleging numerous causes of action, including for fraud, intentional interference with business or contractual relations, physical abuse, and stalking. The trial court sustained Guerrero’s demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend and entered judgment in favor of Guerrero. Representing himself, Bolton appeals. He argues the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. We disagree and affirm.1

1 We have exercised our discretion to consider Bolton’s belatedly-filed

reply brief. We recite only those facts necessary to resolve the issues before us, omitting references to defendants who are not parties to this appeal. Like the trial court and Guerrero, we refer to Bolton using masculine pronouns. 1

BACKGROUND Bolton filed a complaint alleging 16 causes of action against Guerrero. Nearly all of his claims consisted solely of generic language taken from the Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI). The complaint generally alleged Guerrero defrauded, harassed, assaulted and stalked Bolton; interfered with a contract Bolton had with public entities and a public official; and denied Bolton full and equal access to municipal services and facilities, among other things. Guerrero demurred, arguing Bolton lacked capacity to sue because “A. Bolton” was not plaintiff’s true name and the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action. Guerrero also sought and obtained judicial notice of other actions filed by “A. Bolton” and a federal court dismissal of one such action due to Bolton’s failure to provide a true name or file an appropriate request for confidentiality. Bolton did not oppose the demurrer. The trial court issued a tentative ruling concluding the complaint was uncertain as “the facts alleged . . . are difficult to follow, uncertain, conclusory, and do not adequately describe the alleged incident that forms the basis of the claims.” It granted Bolton leave to amend the complaint and indicated Bolton should provide his full first name, an assumed name by which he is recognized, or allegations that would support using a fictitious name. Guerrero contested the tentative ruling. After a hearing on the demurrer—at which Bolton did not appear—the court modified its tentative ruling and sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. Bolton then moved for reconsideration which the court denied. Subsequently, the court entered judgment for Guerrero. Bolton appealed the judgment.