Branson
Branson v. Martin
Opinion
Opinion
Nott, J.
Ronald Branson appeals from an order of dismissal following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend in favor of respondents Kevil W. Martin and County of Los Angeles. We affirm.
Standard of Review
On appeal, we are obligated to assume the truth of all facts (but not contentions or conclusions of law) properly pleaded by appellant. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 [ 216 Cal.Rptr. 718 , 703 P.2d 58 ].) We also interpret the complaint as a whole, giving it a reasonable interpretation, and making a determination as to whether the facts state the basis of any relief. Further, we will accept the truth of all facts which may logically be inferred from the facts alleged in the complaint. (Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403 [ 44 Cal.Rptr.2d 339 ].)
Keeping those principles in mind, and casting aside the political rhetoric with which appellant’s pleading is filled, we now examine the complaint.
Facts
Appellant’s complaint consists of an attempt to state six causes of action, several of which have novel titles: “Violation of Statutorily-Created Right under Vehicle Code section 40502(a); Arbitrarily Adjudicating Action and…