<p><b> </b></p> <br /> <h1>Simpson v. JAMS/Endispute</h1> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">Filed 7/26/06 Simpson v. JAMS/Endispute CA1/2</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"><b>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS</b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p>California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.</p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"><b> </b></p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center">DIVISION TWO</p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p> <br /> <p align="center"> </p><br /> <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"><br /> <tr><br /> <td width="319" valign="top"> <br /> <p>ALLEN R. SIMPSON,</p> <br /> <p> Plaintiff and Appellant,</p> <br /> <p>v.</p> <br /> <p>JAMS/ENDISPUTE, LLC,</p> <br /> <p> Defendant and Respondent.</p><br /> </td><br /> <td width="319" valign="top"> <br /> <p> A110634</p> <br /> <p> (San Francisco County</p> <br /> <p> Super. Ct. No. CGC 434349)</p><br /> </td><br /> </tr><br /> </table> <br /> <p align="center">INTRODUCTION</p> <br /> <p> Allen R. Simpson appeals in propria persona from a judgment of the <a href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/">San Francisco County Superior Court</a> dismissing his complaint against respondent JAMS/Endispute (JAMS), following the sustaining of JAMS's demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend. The crux of Simpson's claim against JAMS was that he paid for <a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">mediation services</a> in connection with his action in <i>Simpson v. Bank of America </i>(Super. Ct. S.F. City and County, 2001, No. CGC 402367), but that no representatives from the bank attended the mediation and the mediator did not properly conduct the mediation, but rather advised Simpson to â€