Cairns v. Legal Aid Soc'y of San Diego, Inc.

NIGEL CAIRNS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO, INC., Defendant and Respondent.

D078441

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, First Division

April 21, 2022

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County No 37-2019-00069067-CU-PO-CTL, Gregory W. Pollack, Judge.

Nigel Cairns, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Klinedinst, Heather L. Rosing and Robert M. Shaughnessy for Defendant and Respondent.

DO, J.

INTRODUCTION

Nigel Cairns sued the Legal Aid Society of San Diego (Legal Aid) for intentional infliction of emotional distress, after he was twice denied Legal Aid services in connection with a landlord-tenant matter. ^[1] He appeals from the trial court's ruling sustaining Legal Aid's demurrer to his third amended complaint (TAC) without leave to amend. The trial court found the allegations of the TAC were" 'uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible'" (Code Civ. Proc., ^[2] § 430.10 subd. (f)); the mere denial of legal services does not constitute" 'outrageous conduct'" sufficient to state a viable cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress (§ 430.10, subd. (e)) and there was no reasonable possibility that Cairns can cure these deficiencies by amendment. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

I. Cairns's Allegations Against Legal Aid^[3]

Cairns alleged he is a retired physician who lost a large part of his retirement savings in the 2008 recession. In May 2017, he moved into the Manor, "a 140-unit apartment complex" in San Diego owned by Lions Community and subsidized by "HUD" (i.e., the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development). Cairns received a monthly rent subsidy of "nearly $IK."

In July 2017, Cairns received what he alleged was an "eviction notice." He attached a partial copy of this notice to his second amended complaint. The notice bore the title, "Notice to Permanently Perform Covenant or Quit," and informed Cairns that to comply, he was required, within 10 days, to cease and desist any behavior that interfered with others' quiet enjoyment of the premises, cease and desist aggressive and/or harassing behavior with staff, and abide by the terms of his lease. (Capitalization omitted.)

Cairns alleged he consulted with a lawyer and "got the eviction changed to a warning." However, in September 2017, his rent was refused "without explanation." But he was able to "solve[ ]" the problem of the rent refusal when he sent a "complaint to [Lions Community] management sent via the BBB [Better Business Bureau]." In January 2018, he received a 90-day notice of eviction. In April 2018, the manager for the Manor refused his rent and precluded him from completing "[r]e-certification papers" which "are required every year."

In connection with his problems at the Manor, Cairns applied twice for free legal assistance from Legal Aid. The first time was in September 2017, after his rent was refused. He alleged he "was unable to find out" why he was refused but "presumed that fewer assets was better." He applied again in April 2018, with "only $7K remaining," but was again refused. Believing he was facing "certain eviction, [he] gave up[, ] gave away EVERYTHING, and set off on foot for Mexico."

When he returned to San Diego in September 2018, he "read about the Shriver Project"^[4] and learned it had an "income criterion of $28K" which was "far above" his income. However, he did not know "the separate asset criterion." "So in [the] Fall of 2018 [he] applied again, and decided to play a trick on [Legal Aid]." He provided Legal Aid with the financial information he had provided when he unsuccessfully applied in April 2018. This time, he "was accepted without reservations or conditions!" He received a call from Legal Aid the next day, and told the Legal Aid representative "that it was a trick." That evening, he received a call from a Legal Aid lawyer. He asked why Legal Aid "did not use emails as that would have prevented the apparent serious mistake in [his] application" and received the response," 'Too busy.' "

Cairns then visited the Legal Aid office and spoke to its director. When the director "read the entry" from when Cairns applied in April 2018, Cairns learned Legal Aid had purportedly made a mathematical mistake in considering his reported assets. Cairns had reported assets of "between $5K and $8K" but the intake worker, he alleges, "wrote $5K and $8K equals $I3K." He was "rejected" because "the limit was $IOK." He alleged he was then "ejected" from the office after arguing with the director.

Cairns alleged "[t]he inappropriate refusal of legal aid ensured [his] eviction, homeless[ness] and distress." He sued Legal Aid, asserting intentional infliction of emotional distress as the sole cause of action.

To further support his claim against Legal Aid, Cairns alleged he believes "there are factors which indicate possible co-ordination [sic] of behavior between" Legal Aid and Lions Community. He alleged "[i]t would be to [Lions Community's] advantage if [he] were refused Legal Aid" because "[his] eviction would be simpler" and it "would also ensure [his] distress." He further alleged that a lawyer who worked with the law firm that represented Lions Community used to work at Legal Aid, and a partner in the same law firm, "wrote in 2016 about the increased delays and work now involved in evictions because more clients had representation."

II. Legal Aid's Demurrer to the TAC

Legal Aid demurred to the TAC. On October 9, 2020, the trial court sustained the demurrer on two independent grounds.

First, the trial court found the allegations against Legal Aid" 'uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible'" and sustained the demurrer pursuant to section 430.10, subdivision (f).

Second, the trial court ruled that Legal Aid's "fail[ure] to provide services to Cairns does not constitute the requisite 'outrageous conduct' sufficient to state a viable cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress." Thus, it sustained the demurrer on the ground that the TAC failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, pursuant to section 430.10, subdivision (e).

The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, finding there is not a "reasonable possibility that Cairns can state a good cause of action against Legal Aid." On January 22, 2021, the trial court entered a judgment of dismissal in favor of Legal Aid. ^[5]

DISCUSSION

I. Principles of Law

"In reviewing an order sustaining a demurrer, we examine the operative complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory." (T.H. v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (2017) 4 Cal.5th 145, 162.)" 'We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded[.]'" (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 (Blank).) We "accept as true not only those facts alleged in the complaint but also facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged." (Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403.) "We do not, however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law." (Moore v. Regents of University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 125; accord Blank, at p. 318.)

"In considering a trial court's order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend,' "we review the trial court's result for error, and not its legal reasoning." '" (Morales v. 22nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 85, 93.) We" 'affirm the judgment if it is correct on any theory.'" (Ibid.) "And when [a demurrer] is sustained without leave to amend, we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment: if it can be, the trial court has abused its discretion and we reverse; if not, there has been no abuse of discretion and we affirm." (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318.) "The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff." (Ibid.)

Further, on appeal, we presume the trial court's judgment to be correct. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is therefore the burden of the party challenging the judgment to affirmatively demonstrate error. (Bianco v. California Highway Patrol (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1125.)" 'In so doing, he must raise claims of reversible error or other defect [citation], and "present argument and authority on each point made." '" (Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544, fn. 8; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) "We are not required to examine undeveloped claims or to supply arguments for the litigants." (Allen v. City of Sacramento (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52; Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 104.) "Nor is an appellate court required to consider alleged error where the appellant merely complains of it without pertinent argument." (Berger v. Godden (1985) 163 Cal.App.3d 1113, 1119 (Berger).)

An appeal may be deemed forfeited or abandoned where it fails to comply with the essential requirements of an appeal, including the requirement of providing a "reason to reverse or even modify the orders in question." (Conservatorship of Ben C, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 544, fn. 8; see Berger, supra, 163 Cal.App.3d at p. 1120 [deeming appeal abandoned where appellant's brief "simply failed to make any arguments to support any theory of error"].)

These rules apply equally to self-represented litigants like Cairns. "The same burdens are imposed uniformly and equally on all appellants, and self-represented parties are' "held to the same restrictive procedural rules as an attorney." '" (Burkes v Robertson (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 334, 344-345 (Burkes);...