Elasali v. Phillips CA4/1

── Elasali v. Phillips CA4/1 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 20, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/20/26 Elasali v. Phillips CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOUREDDINE ELASALI, D084899 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2021- v. 00050091-CU-NP-CTL) JENNIFER NICOLE PHILLIPS et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Katherine A. Bacal, Judge. Affirmed. Noureddine Elasali, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Delmore Greene, Terence L. Greene and Daniel W. Towson for Defendants and Respondents. Noureddine Elasali appeals from an order of dismissal after the court’s order sustaining defendants’ demurrers without leave to amend. He argues that the court erred in denying him leave to amend and requests that we allow him to amend his complaint. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In November of 2021, Elasali filed a complaint for malicious prosecution, emotional distress, intentional infliction of distress, and conspiracy against 26 people and two law firms. In 2023, defendants Jennifer Nicole Phillips and Delmore Greene LLP, Terence L. Greene, Daniel W. Towson and Ross M. Poole filed demurrers, alleging uncertainty and failure to state a cause of action. Elasali filed an opposition, requesting that the court grant him leave to amend the complaint but he did not state what amendments were contemplated to address the deficiencies raised in the demurrers and he did not file a proposed amended pleading. After granting Elasali’s request for a six-month continuance of the hearings on the demurrers, on July 26, 2024, the court heard and sustained the demurrers without leave to amend. Noting that no proof of service had been filed for any of the other defendants named in the complaint, the court dismissed the action without prejudice. II. DISCUSSION Elasali argues that the trial court should not have sustained the demurrers and should have given him leave to amend his complaint. We disagree. “ ‘ “On appeal from an order of dismissal after an order sustaining a demurrer, our standard of review is de novo, i.e., we exercise our independent judgment about whether the complaint states a cause of action as a matter of law.” ’ ” (Los Altos El Granada Investors v. City of Capitola (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 629, 650.) “ ‘We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. [Citation.] We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.’ [Citation.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. [Citation.] When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts 2 sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318 (Kirwan).) As an initial matter, we note that in its current form, Elasali’s complaint falls far short of stating any claim. It is a three-page form complaint with a single attachment naming the defendants. The caption states that it is an action for malicious prosecution; and the third page contains the statement “emotional distress, intentional infliction of distress