Filed 9/30/16 Coleman v. Pasadena City CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

COL. ARTHUR COLEMAN,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

PASADENA CITY et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 B265771, B266939

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. EC063129)

APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Donna 

Fields Goldstein, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Col. Arthur Coleman, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Michele Beal Bagneris, City Attorney, and Frank L. Rhemrev, Assistant City 

Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents City of Pasadena and Bill Bogaard.

Musick, Peeler & Garrett, Barbora Pulmanova and Kiersten A. Wiens for 

Defendants and Respondents Passageway Organization, Susan Mandel and Steve Danon.

——————————
2

Col. Arthur Coleman (Coleman) appeals in pro. per. from the trial court’s granting 

of a demurrer without leave to amend and dismissing his first amended complaint against 

the City of Pasadena and other defendants. “[T]he rules of civil procedure must apply 

equally to parties represented by counsel and those who forego attorney representation.” 

(Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984–985.) We have carefully considered 

each of Coleman’s arguments, and we affirm.

BACKGROUND

On March 16, 2015, Coleman filed a handwritten first amended complaint naming 

as defendants “Pasadena City, Public Entity, Bill Bogaard, Mayor, Passageway 

Organization, Susan Mandel, President, Steve Danon, Director.” The original complaint, 

filed November 17, 2014, is not in the record on appeal. Coleman alleged that the City of 

Pasadena and Mayor Bill Bogaard (hereafter, the City) issued a business license to 

Passageway Organization (Passageway), requiring it to “function fair under business 

practice with all client, customer and citizen.” (Underscore omitted.) On November 6, 

2013, a Passageway associate received a “properly cordial” letter Coleman had mailed 

“in a custom graphic created envelope.” Steve Danon (Danon), Passageway’s director, 

told Coleman the envelope was “beyond modern society acceptance and must be wrong 

or negative or immoral,” and “only a white color envelope was to be used in future for 

correspondence to Passageway,” or Coleman would be denied all services. Danon 

directed Passageway’s intake coordinator to tell Coleman he would be denied services for 

ten business days. The City was responsible for safeguarding Coleman’s personal 

property rights and civil rights, and failed to do so or to investigate. Coleman had filed a 

claim with the City on May 13, 2014. Coleman alleged causes of action for “business 

establishment discrimination,” “gross negligence or negligence,” emotional distress, 

conspiracy, “respondent superior,” and revocation of professional license. (Underscore 

omitted.) Coleman demanded “three hundred trillion dollars” in damages and “nine 

trillion dollars” in punitive damages.
3

Passageway and Danon (collectively, Passageway) filed a demurrer to the first 

amended complaint. The City also filed a demurrer, which is not in the record on appeal. 

Susan Mandel (Mandel) filed a demurrer.

On June 19, 2015, the trial court sustained the City’s demurrer without leave to 

amend, and entered a judgment of dismissal on July 10, 2015. The City had no 

governmental tort liability because no statute established that the City had a duty to 

Coleman based on the issuance of a business license to Passageway. On July 17, 2015, 

the court sustained the Passageway demurrer without leave to amend. A judgment of 

dismissal as to Passageway was filed on August 7, 2015. On August 21, 2015, the trial 

court denied Coleman’s motion for reconsideration of its order sustaining Passageway’s 

demurrer. On August 28, 2015, the trial court sustained Mandel’s demurrer without leave 

to amend.

Coleman filed two notices of appeal, the first on July 24, 2015 from the June 19, 

2015 order sustaining the City’s demurrer, and the second on September 8, 2015, from 

the August 28, 2015 order sustaining Mandel’s demurrer, and the appeals were separately 

briefed.1 We consolidated the two appeals for argument and disposition. On 

September 21, 2016, Coleman thoroughly argued his positions before this court.

 

1

In his first notice of appeal, Coleman purported to appeal from the judgment of 

dismissal after an order sustaining the City’s demurrer, but listed the order appealed from 

as the June 19, 2015 order sustaining the City’s demurrer without leave to amend. The 

latter order alone is not appealable: “[A]ppeal must be taken from the ensuing order 

(judgment) of dismissal.” (Hebert v. Los Angeles Raiders (1991) 23 Cal.App.4th 414, 

418, fn. 1.) A judgment of dismissal as to the City was entered on July 10, 2015, before 

Coleman filed the notice of appeal, and so “[c]onstruing the notice of appeal liberally in 

favor of its sufficiency [citation], we interpret it to apply to the appealable judgment 

rather than the nonappealable order[].” (Ibid.) In his second notice of appeal, Coleman 

listed the order appealed from as the August 28, 2015 order sustaining Mandel’s 

demurrer without leave to amend, and the superior court docket does not show that a 

judgment of dismissal was entered as to Mandel. Nevertheless, “[t]he fact that no 

judgment of dismissal was entered on the order sustaining the demurrer does not present 

an insurmountable obstacle to the appeal.” (Shepardson v. McLellan (1963) 59 Cal.2d 

83, 88.) It would be inefficient to dismiss the appeal, order the trial court to enter a 

judgment of dismissal on the sustained demurrer, and then permit a subsequent appeal 
4

We understand and have diligently considered his arguments. However, we do not 

agree with his contentions.

DISCUSSION

We review the sustaining of a demurrer de novo to determine whether the

complaint states a cause of action. (Coast Plaza Doctors Hospital v. Blue Cross of 

California (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1179, 1185–1186.) We review the denial of leave to 

amend to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining that 

amendment cannot cure the pleading, and the “plaintiff has the burden to show the 

possibility of cure by amendment.” (Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp. (2004) 120 

Cal.App.4th 72, 78.)

Coleman claims that the trial court wrongly assessed sanctions for his failure to 

serve Danon with the original complaint. The record shows that on March 13, 2015, the 

trial court discharged the order to show cause regarding sanctions without imposing 

sanctions.

Coleman claims that in its demurrer to the original complaint, the City falsely 

argued that Coleman had not filed a claim with the City. The City represents that it did 

not make this argument in its demurrer to the first amended complaint, and Coleman does 

not argue otherwise. Coleman also argues that the City did not give him notice that an 

investigation would not be conducted into his claim, but that is not relevant to whether 

his first amended complaint states a cause of action.

Coleman points to a mistake by the court clerk in processing his motion for 

augmentation, without stating how any mistake affected the outcome or prejudiced him.

Coleman argues that the City demurred only to his cause of action for gross 

negligence, so that his cause of action for negligence survives the sustaining of the 

demurrer without leave to amend. He has failed to include the City’s demurrer in the 

 

from the dismissal. (Ibid.) Instead, as the parties treat the appeal as properly before us, 

we “deem[] the order sustaining the demurrer to incorporate a judgment of dismissal and 

interpret[] plaintiff’s notice of appeal as applying to such dismissal.” (Federer v. County 

of Sacramento (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 184, 185.)
5

appellate record. In any event, the trial court sustained the demurrer to any tort liability 

on the part of the City, which would include “gross negligence or negligence” as 

Coleman alleged in the first amended complaint. The trial court was correct that the City 

as a public entity could not be held liable on the basis of its grant of a business license to 

Passageway. “A public entity is not liable for any injury ‘[e]xcept as otherwise provided 

by statute.’ ([Gov. Code,] § 815, subd. (a).)” Richardson-Tunnell v. School Ins. 

Program for Employees (SIPE) (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1056, 1061.) Coleman points to 

no statute that provides the City is liable for an injury caused by a business to which the 

City has issued a license. His first amended complaint cites Government Code 

section 830, subdivision (b), which defines “‘protect against’” a dangerous condition, but 

subdivision (a) defines a dangerous condition as “a condition of property that creates a 

substantial . . . risk of injury when such property or adjacent property is used with due 

care in a manner in which it is reasonably forseeable that it will be used.” The first 

amended complaint alleges that the City was required to protect his “personal property 

rights against violation, from license business operations unlawful,” but that does not 

allege any such dangerous condition.

Coleman also claims that the trial court abused its discretion in denying him leave 

to amend. He argues he could have amended to assert a “claim action case” against the 

City but the court did not ask or make inquiry of him if he could show that amendment 

was possible. Coleman had the burden to show that he could amend his complaint, and 

the record does not contain any proposed changes or additions he could have made to 

cure the defects in his first amended complaint. (Saint v. Saint (1932) 120 Cal.App. 15, 

23–24.)

Regarding Mandel, Coleman argues a substitution of attorney was not properly 

served on him and the signatures on the form had different dates. He does not show how 

this supposed irregularity is relevant to the trial court’s sustaining of the demurrer 

without leave to amend.

Coleman also makes claims of error regarding Passageway. Neither of his notices 

of appeal designates the July 17, 2015 sustaining of Passageway’s demurrer without 
6

leave to amend, or the August 21, 2015 denial of Coleman’s motion for reconsideration, 

as the judgment or order from which Coleman appeals. “‘Our jurisdiction on appeal is 

limited in scope to the notice of appeal and the judgment or order appealed from.’ 

[Citation.] We have no jurisdiction over an order not mentioned in the notice of appeal.” 

(Faunce v. Cate (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 166, 170.) We lack jurisdiction to consider 

Coleman’s claims regarding Passageway and its director Danon. (Ibid.)

DISPOSITION

The August 28, 2015 order sustaining Susan Mandel’s demurrer without leave to 

amend is modified by adding thereto a judgment dismissing the action. As modified the 

judgments are affirmed. City of Pasadena, Bill Bogaard, and Susan Mandel are to 

recover their costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

JOHNSON, J.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

LUI, J.