Hedman v. Aurora Loan Services CA3

Filed 11/13/13 Hedman v. Aurora Loan Services CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

KEITH O. HEDMAN et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, C069453

v. (Super. Ct. No. 39201100260395CUFRSTK) AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC,

Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiffs Keith and Adrialyn Hedman retained attorneys to pursue claims involving their home mortgage. The attorneys filed a complaint, defendant Aurora Loan Services LLC (Aurora) filed a demurrer, and the trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend, giving the Hedmans 20 days to file an amended complaint.1

1 The complaint is included in Aurora’s request for judicial notice filed on September 10, 2012. In addition, the demurrer and reply in support of demurrer are

1

Forty-three days later, with no amended complaint on file, the trial court granted Aurora’s application to dismiss the original complaint with prejudice. The trial court subsequently denied the Hedmans’ motion for reconsideration and to set aside the judgment on grounds of mistake or inadvertence. The Hedmans contend on appeal that the judgment of dismissal is void because they did not receive proper notice of the ruling on demurrer. In the alternative, they contend the trial court should have granted their motion to set aside the judgment based on inadvertence, surprise and mistake. We conclude there is substantial evidence that the Hedmans had sufficient notice of the ruling to support dismissal, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to vacate the judgment. We will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND The Hedmans filed a 12-count, 51-page complaint on March 23, 2011, and served it several weeks later. Among other things, the complaint alleged that although the Hedmans were current in their mortgage payments, Aurora and other named defendants artificially manufactured a default situation and initiated illegal foreclosure measures. The complaint identified counsel for the Hedmans as Rey Hassan with the Hassan Law Firm, and Anthony P. X. Bothwell with the Law Offices of Anthony P. X. Bothwell. One of the other named defendants demurred on May 19, setting a hearing date for June 22. Using the same hearing date, Aurora filed a demurrer on May 24, and the Hedmans filed an opposition to Aurora’s demurrer on June 9. The trial court issued a tentative ruling on June 21, stating: “Appearance is required.” On June 22, the scheduled hearing took place. The trial court’s June 22 minute order noted that defense