Sandoval v. Chase Fufillment Center
Filed 4/15/13
Sandoval v. Chase Fufillment Center CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JUAN R. SANDOVAL et al.,
Plaintiffs and
Appellants,
v.
CHASE FULFILLMENT CENTER, N.A.,
et al.,
Defendants and
Respondents.
F064156
(Super.
Ct. No. 11CECG02161)
THE COURT
name="_ftnref1" title="">*
APPEAL from
a judgment of the Superior Court of
County. Alan M. Simpson, Judge.
Juan
Sandoval and Gudelia Sandoval, in pro. per., for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
AlvaradoSmith,
John M. Sorich, S. Christopher Yoo and Jacob M. Clark for Defendant and
Respondent JPMorgan Chase Bank.
Law Offices
of Glenn H. Wechsler, Glenn H. Wechsler and Natalie Sperry Mandelin for
Defendant and Respondent First American Trustee Servicing Solutions.
-ooOoo-
Appellants,
Juan Sandoval and Gudelia Sandoval, filed a complaint against respondents,
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMorgan Chase) and First American Trustee Servicing
Solutions, LLC (First American), seeking damages for fraud and negligent
misrepresentation in connection with their application for a modification of
their home loan. According to
appellants, although they provided JPMorgan Chase with all of the requested
documents and paid an additional $2,000 per month toward their mortgage for
seven months, JPMorgan Chase nevertheless refused to modify the loan and
initiated nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings against them.
Respondents
demurred to the complaint. The trial
court sustained the demurrers on the ground that appellants failed to state
facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Regarding the cause of action for negligent
misrepresentation, the court determined that appellants had not alleged that
the statements were made with intent to induce reliance or that they actually
relied on those statements. The court
further determined that appellants had not alleged any of the elements of a
cause of action for fraud. The court
granted appellants 10 days leave to amend the complaint with the time to run
from service of the minute order.
Appellants
did not file an amended complaint. Thereafter, on respondents’ applications for
dismissal, the trial court dismissed the complaint and entered judgments in
respondents’ favor.
Appellants
have appealed from the judgment entered in favor of JPMorgan Chase. According to appellants, they were confused
by the ruling on the demurrers and were not aware that they had to file an
amended complaint. Further, appellants
contend that the trial court delivered its decision on the application for
dismissal before appellants were permitted to comment. Appellants acknowledge that they erred but
argue that it “was not intentional due to lack of knowledge in the court
proceedings†and ask this court “to consider granting the appeal to resolve
[JPMorgan] Chase’s inhumane intentional fraud and deception.†Although no appeal was taken from the
judgment entered in favor of First American, First American has nevertheless
filed a responding brief “in an abundance of caution.â€
Appellants
have not met their burden to show reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment will be affirmed.
DISCUSSION
Because
appellants failed to file an amended complaint following the sustaining of the
demurrer, the trial court dismissed the action pursuant to Code of Civil
Procedure section 581, subdivision (f)(2).
The authority to dismiss this action rested in the trial court’s sound
discretion. (Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1054.) Accordingly, this court will not disturb the
trial court’s ruling unless appellants establish that the trial court abused
its discretion. (Ibid.)
Appellants
appear to argue that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing their
complaint because Juan Sandoval was not able to comment on JPMorgan Chase’s
court made its ruling. However, contrary
to appellants’ position, the trial court permitted Sandoval to state his
appearance and make his argument before making a final ruling. Sandoval objected to the application to
dismiss his case on the ground that at the status conference, when the case was
set for trial, there was no indication that the case would be dismissed. After JPMorgan Chase’s counsel responded, the
trial court told Sandoval that it would “look over the matter once again,
having heard what you had to offer today, and you’ll receive the decision of
the Court in the mail.â€
Appellants
also argue that the judgment of dismissal should be reversed because their failure
to amend the complaint was not intentional and was due to their confusion and
lack of knowledge of court proceedings.
However, while a party may choose to act as his or her own attorney,
such a party is to be treated like any other party. He or she is entitled to the same, but no
greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. (Nwosu
v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) Accordingly, the in propria persona litigant
is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney. (County
of Orange v. Smith (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1444.) Therefore, appellants’ lack of knowledge does
not excuse their failure to timely amend their complaint.
In sum, appellants have not met their
burden of establishing that the trial court abused its discretion when it
dismissed their complaint.
DISPOSITION
The
judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal
are awarded to respondents.
name="_ftn1" title="">* Before
Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J. and Kane, J.
