Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 22STCV33411, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV33411    Hearing Date: October 4, 2023    Dept: 14

Case Background

            The original complaint in this action was filed on October 13, 2022. The body of that document was headed “Notice of Trespass.” It names a single defendant: “The man or woman whom [sic] acts as the head of Wells Fargo.” It alleged that Wells Fargo took some property (it doesn’t say what) belonging to Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff sent them a notice asking for the return of his property and imposing a “fee” (it doesn’t say by what authority) of $100 billion for the offense, plus $1 billion per month for each month they retained his property.

            Attached to the original complaint was a “Notice” addressed to the clerk of this court. The notice said that Plaintiff “now require[s] a court order of record to press claims of trespass and to present i [sic] before a man or woman who is confident of property and trespass law there to keep the peace and put forth the orders of the curtis a. chism jr. court.” It also said that Plaintiff will appear in court “simply as a man to present these claims,” that Plaintiff will require no legal forms, and that “this is a claim not a complaint.” Plaintiff asked the court to provide him a room, a “man or woman well versed at law” to serve as “magistrate,” and not to charge him any fees.

            Also attached to the original complaint was a document headed “Rules of the Court.” Among other things, Rule 2 required the “judge or magistrate” to take an oath to serve mankind. Rule 6 said that the court “will not accept any legal arguments, codes, acts and or statues as this is a court of law.” Rule 8 said that the court “is to be private.” Rule 9 said that the orders of the “curtis a. chism court” would be presented to the clerk of the Superior Court and become enforceable thereby.

            After three hearings in this department, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint substituting Wells Fargo in as the sole Defendant. The Amended Complaint alleged that Plaintiff had a claim to $55,977.96 in cash, that he asked for the money from Wells Fargo on January 13, 2020, but that Wells Fargo didn’t release the money to him until February 18, 2020. The Amended Complaint did not identify the account in which the money was allegedly held. It did not identify the nature of Plaintiff’s claim to the funds (i.e. was it his own money previously deposited in his own account with the bank, was it a check drawn on someone else’s account that Wells Fargo refused to cash, etc.). It did not describe what damages Plaintiff suffered from losing the use of the money for a month.

            On May 31, 2023, this court issued a written order sustaining Defendant Wells Fargo’s demurrer with leave to amend.

            On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed an “Amendment of Claim with Evidence Attached.”

Instant Pleading

            Defendant Wells Fargo now demurs to the “Amendment of Claim” on the grounds that it fails to state any cause of action and is uncertain.

Decision

            The demurrer is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend. Defendant Wells Fargo is to submit a judgment of dismissal within 10 days.

Discussion

            The body of the “Amendment of Claim” runs 5 pages, with 34 pages of exhibits attached. The first three and a half pages contain various elaborate claims, disclaimers, and reservations about Plaintiff’s status, rights, intentions, and beliefs. Not until the second half of page 4 is Defendant Wells Fargo even mentioned. The remainder of the document contains no new or different information than was included in the two previous pleadings. It remains impossible for this court to tell what Plaintiff’s legal theory is, and how any of his claimed facts would correspond to that theory.

            Since the filing of the demurrer, Plaintiff has filed five additional documents. The first is entitled “Notice of Remedy” and takes the form of a public letter to Wells Fargo’s counsel about revenge and forgiveness. That letter also expresses Plaintiff’s willingness to dismiss the case. The second is captioned “Conflict Resolution and Severability” and “directs” that the dispute go forward in arbitration rather than in court. The third is called “Notice of Arbitration and Rules of Court” and contains a list of eight rules Plaintiff wants followed in this case. The fourth is styled a “Certificate of Ownership” and appears to be a statement that Plaintiff owns his own name. The fifth bears the label “Equitable Claim Requires Injunction” and seems to be a request that the court issue an injunction.

            None of these documents is properly an opposition to the demurrer, and none of them is legally cognizable in any way. Since the Amendment of Claim retains the same defects it previously had, and since Plaintiff has given this court no prospect of an intelligible amendment, there is no reasonable probability that Plaintiff can or will state a proper cause of action in this court.

Conclusion

            The second Amendment of Claim contains all the defects present in the first. And while Plaintiff has variously expressed wishes to dismiss the case, move it to arbitration, or seek remedies from this court, Plaintiff has never filed a proper opposition to the demurrer. The court has no reason to believe that Plaintiff will ever be able to state a cause of action on which this court could grant relief.

            Therefore, the demurrer is SUSTAINED, without leave to amend. Defendant Wells Fargo is to submit a judgment of dismissal within 10 days.