Filed 7/29/26 Rupnow v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
CARMELITA RUPNOW, B341022
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. 19STCV30001)
v.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Lia Martin, Judge. Affirmed.
Cliff Dean Schneider for Plaintiff and Appellant.
McGuireWoods and Piper A. McCormick for Defendants
and Respondents.
_______________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Carmelita Rupnow contends the trial court erred in
granting judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend and
dismissing her lawsuit against Deutsche Bank National Trust
Company, as Trustee for the Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust
2004-9, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2004-9; Bank
of America, N.A.; and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
Inc. We find this matter appropriate for disposition by a
memorandum opinion in accordance with the California
Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See People v.
Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 850–855 [use of memorandum
opinions].)
“In order to demonstrate error, an appellant must supply
the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by
legal analysis and citation to the record. Rather than scour the
record unguided, we may decide that the appellant has waived a
point urged on appeal when it is not supported by accurate
citations to the record. [Citations.] Similarly, we may disregard
conclusory arguments that are not supported by pertinent legal
authority or fail to disclose the reasoning by which the appellant
reached the conclusions [it] wants us to adopt.” (City of Santa
Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 286–287.)
Rupnow’s first argument concerning res judicata is a
conclusory, eight-sentence passage that includes no citations to
the record to support her factual assertions, contains only one
legal citation to a general description of the function of res
judicata, and includes no meaningful legal analysis of either the
trial court’s reasoning or the law of res judicata. Her second
argument, that her First Amended Complaint alleged facts
sufficient to state a cause of action, is similarly deficient: not one
2
of her many factual assertions is supported by a citation to the
record, and her argument is replete with conclusory assertions
unsupported by meaningful factual and legal analysis. Rupnow
has not met her burden “to demonstrate, on the basis of the
record presented to the appellate court, that the trial court
committed an error that justifies reversal of the judgment.”
(Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 609.)
Rupnow requests leave to amend her complaint on appeal,
but she has not shown “ ‘in what manner [s]he can amend [her]
complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect
of [her] pleading.’ [Citation.] The assertion of an abstract right
to amend does not satisfy this burden. [Citation.] The plaintiff
must clearly and specifically set forth the ‘applicable substantive
law’ [citation] and the legal basis for amendment, i.e., the
elements of the cause of action and authority for it. Further, the
plaintiff must set forth factual allegations that sufficiently state
all required elements of that cause of action. [Citations.]
Allegations must be factual and specific, not vague or
conclusionary.” (Rakestraw v. California Physicians’ Service
(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43–44.) Here, Rupnow repeatedly
asserts that her complaint can “clearly” or “[c]ertainly” be
amended to address various issues, but she does not present
factual and specific factual allegations that sufficiently state all
required elements of the various causes of action she claims can
be amended, with substantive law and the legal basis for her
proposed amendments. Her conclusory claims do not meet her
burden of showing a reasonable possibility that the defects in her
complaint can be cured by amendment. (See ibid.; T.H. v.
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (2017) 4 Cal.5th 145, 162.)
3
Rupnow has not established any error in granting the motion for
judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Respondents shall recover their
costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
STRATTON, P. J.
We concur:
VIRAMONTES, J.
SCHERB, J.
4