Pearlson

Pearlson v. Does 1 to 4646

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 1067·76 Cal. App. 4th 1005·90 Cal. Rptr. 2d 787·99 Daily Journal DAR 12343·99 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9601
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 6, 1999B130931California2,863 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hastings, J.

Gary H. Pearlson, in propria persona, filed this appeal after the superior court dismissed his complaint. We affirm the judgment (order of dismissal).

Factual and Procedural Background

This is the second occasion we have had to revisit the viability of this action. As we explained in a prior opinion (Pearlson v. Does 1 to 646 (July 24, 1998) B114452 [nonpub. opn.]), “This action was initiated by the filing of a verified complaint on November 22, 1996. Appellant Gary H. Pearlson in propria persona, is the plaintiff, and named as defendants were Does 1 through 646. The complaint alleges various claims which are best summarized as claims for trespass and invasion of privacy throughout the counties of Los Angeles, Ventura, and San Diego and the city of Las Vegas, Nevada. These torts occurred at various locations which include commercial premises such as food stands, hotels, health clubs, flower shops, locksmiths, and bookstores, as well as public premises such as Dodger Stadium, parks, bike paths, beaches, piers and Marina Del Rey. These occurrences are alleged to have begun on October 1, 1987, and to have continued up through the date of filing. One of the specific…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.