Jember v. First Nat. Lending Services CA6

Filed 6/2/14 Jember v. First Nat. Lending Services CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

ASCHILEW JEMBER, et al., H038659 (Santa Clara County Plaintiffs and Appellants, Super. Ct. No. 110CV173750)

v.

FIRST NATIONAL LENDING SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Aschilew Jember, Ferede Negash, and Lielti Mesfin (collectively "plaintiffs"), who are representing themselves, filed a notice of appeal that indicated they were appealing from an August 7, 2012 order denying their motion for reconsideration and all other orders since September 23, 2010, which were unspecified. Insofar as we can discern, plaintiffs are attempting to attack a May 17, 2012 order striking their second amended complaint on the ground that it was "manufactured by clerical staffs out of racial hate crime" and the judge "became part of the crime" because he "understood that the clerical staff used his stamp to endorse their criminal operation." They also claim that

1

their second amended complaint was timely filed. They have proceeded by way of an appendix.1 Neither an order denying a motion for reconsideration nor an order striking a complaint is an appealable order. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 904.1, 1008, subd. (g).)2 Their appendix does not show this purported appeal is from a judgment of dismissal after an order sustaining a demurrer, which judgment is appealable. (See § 904.1, subd. (a)(1).) Accordingly, we will dismiss the purported appeal. I Plaintiffs' Appendix Their appendix reflects the following. By order filed on May 17, 2012, the superior court struck plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint as untimely in response to a "Request for Action" from a deputy clerk of the Santa Clara County Superior Court. On May 23, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of that order. On August 9, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal purporting to appeal from the August 7, 2012 order denying their motion for reconsideration and also from "all court orders since September 23, 2010 ongoing in this matter . . . ." The only court order contained in plaintiffs' appendix is the May 17, 2012 order striking the second amended complaint. Although documents in the appendix indicate