Muller

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered upon the sustaining of a general demurrer by defendants to his complaint, without leave to amend. Plaintiff stated in writing to the trial court that if the demurrer should be sustained it should be sustained without leave to amend. He makes the same statement to us, saying that he would not amend his complaint any further even if given leave to do so. This eliminates any question as to an abuse of discretion by the trial court in not affording to appellant an opportunity to amend his complaint. (See Wennerholm v. Stanford University School of Medicine, 20 Cal.2d 713, 719 [ 128 P.2d 522 , 141 A.L.R. 1358 ].) Furthermore, it does not appear to us that any such amendment could result in stating a cause of action. (Routh v. Quinn, 20 Cal.2d 488, 493 [ 127 P.2d 1 , 149 A.L.R. 215 ].) While appellant appears in propria persona, he has had considerable experience as such, particularly with respect to the subject matter of this action.

The complaint does not even purport to state a cause of action or seek any relief against respondent Charles Reagh, who is the attorney for Mrs. Muller. 2 Reference hereafter to “respondent” is intended to…