LaZelle v. Mountain Valley Homeowners Assn. CA2/6

Filed 12/18/25 LaZelle v. Mountain Valley Homeowners Assn. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

MICHAEL LAZELLE et al., 2d Civ. No. B344144 (Super. Ct. No. Plaintiffs and Appellants, 2024CUMC025013) (Ventura County) v.

MOUNTAIN VALLEY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Michael LaZelle and Sherri LaZelle appeal in propria persona from various orders of the trial court. According to the Notice of Appeal, the orders were entered on October 17, 2024, January 10, 2025, and January 17, 2025. We affirm because appellants have not provided an adequate record for appellate review and have not complied with the rules of appellate procedure. We also affirm because one of the appealed orders is not appealable. This order struck appellants’ motion to

disqualify the trial court judge. The order “may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.3, subd. (d).)1 Appellants’ Opening Brief: Introduction’s Allegations The Introduction to appellants’ opening brief alleges, “This appeal arises from a judicial proceeding so infected with constitutional violations, statutory defiance, and unchecked judicial misconduct that it has completely undermined Appellants’ rights to a fair hearing and equal access to justice. Appellants . . . , [who are] homeowners and members of the Mountain Valley Homeowners Association [], have been the repeated targets of retaliatory litigation – coordinated by a felon- controlled board and enabled by a trial court judge who has refused to follow the most basic laws governing impartial adjudication, homeowner protections, and due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.” (Bold omitted.) Failure to Provide Adequate Record The Clerk’s Transcript does not include a judgment. It consists of three orders: (1) a November 6, 2024 order striking appellants’ motion to disqualify the trial judge; (2) a January 10, 2025 order granting defendant Jeremy Yablan’s special motion to strike appellants’ complaint as alleged against him; and (3) a January 17, 2025 order granting defendant Sam Shewa’s special motion to strike the same complaint as alleged against Shewa. The special motions to strike were pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP statute. Although the notice of appeal says that appellants are appealing from an order entered on October 17, 2024, no such order is included in the record on appeal.