Weaver v. Rasmussen
Filed 4/25/06 Weaver v. Rasmussen CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| WEALTHA WEAVER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHARLEEN RASMUSSEN et al., Defendants and Respondents. | E037054 (Super.Ct.No. VCV33513) OPINION |
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Rufus L. Yent, Judge. Affirmed.
Wealtha F. Weaver, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Law Offices of Robert W. Ripley & Associates and Lena Ghianni, for Defendants and Respondents.
1. Introduction
Plaintiff and appellant Wealtha Weaver appeals after the trial court dismissed her action. The trial court sustained the demurrer of defendants and respondents Charleen Rasmussen, Scott Simmons, and Jan Sloan, with leave to plaintiff to amend her complaint. Plaintiff failed to submit a new amended pleading within the time allowed. The court dismissed the complaint and gave judgment for defendants. We affirm.
2. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff in propria persona filed a complaint against Charleen Rasmussen, Scott Simmons, Jan Sloan, an entity called Loan Emporium, another entity called All Points Escrow, Inc., and other named defendants. The situation arose out of an apparent series of loan and mortgage transactions, which plaintiff appears to assert were part of a scheme to defraud her of her interest in two properties: a residence in Victorville, and a condominium in the mountains. Plaintiff's complaint is convoluted, and describes multiple loans, mortgages, foreclosures, refinancing transaction, transfer of deeds, and so forth, in a hodge podge of conflicting allegations.
Plaintiff's complaint alleged causes of action for an accounting, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conspiracy, and breach of contract. The gist of each cause of action is difficult to tease out, and many of the allegations are incoherent, or are inconsistent with other allegations.
In the cause of action for an accounting, for example, plaintiff alleged that the defendants had each misappropriated at least $65,000 from her, but does not describe any particular agreement, or mechanism, or other facts to support a cause of action for an accounting. With respect to the cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, plaintiff made the allegation, among others, that â€
