Zulli v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems CA2/6

Filed 1/6/15 Zulli v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

BRIAN ZULLI, 2d Civil No. B252227 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2010-00383828-CU- Plaintiff and Appellant, OR-SIM) (Ventura County) v.

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

BRIAN ZULLI, 2d Civil No. B253427

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

SAND CANYON CORPORATION,

Defendant and Respondent.

Brian Zulli appeals from the trial court's orders enforcing his settlement agreement and dismissing respondents Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), Litton Loan Servicing LP (Litton), Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee for Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc., asset-backed pass-through certificates, series 2006- SHL1 (Wells Fargo), and Sand Canyon Corporation, formerly known as Option One

Mortgage Corporation (Sand Canyon).1 Zulli also claims the trial judge was peremptorily disqualified from hearing the case. (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.6.) We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY We have previously set forth the facts of this ongoing dispute between the parties and do so only briefly here.2 Appellant sued respondents and other defendants over the nonjudicial foreclosure on his now-deceased mother's residence.3 The trial court dismissed the action after sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, and we dismissed appellant's appeals as untimely. Appellant then filed the instant suits. The trial court dismissed MERS from the action after sustaining its demurrer to the first amended complaint, and we affirmed. (Zulli v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., supra.) The trial court subsequently dismissed Wells Fargo and Litton from the action after sustaining their demurrer to the third amended complaint without leave to amend, and we affirmed. (Zulli v. Litton Loan Servicing LP, supra.) Appellant then filed a third case against respondents involving the nonjudicial foreclosure. In addition, he attempted to add respondents back into the instant case as unnamed "Doe" defendants. Meanwhile, the subject property was sold at a foreclosure sale. When appellant failed to vacate the premises, Wells Fargo filed an unlawful detainer case against him and obtained a writ of possession. Wells Fargo contacted the Ventura County Sheriff and scheduled a lockout at the property on April 12, 2013. On April 11, 2013, appellant and respondents MERS, Litton, and Wells Fargo executed a settlement agreement. Respondents agreed to allow appellant to remain on the property for five additional days. In exchange, appellant agreed to release all his