Chen v. JP Morgan Chase Bank CA2/2

Filed 4/2/15 Chen v. JP Morgan Chase Bank CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

SHU DI CHEN, B255577

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC517388) v.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert L. Hess, Judge. Affirmed. Shu Di Chen, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Thomas M. Peterson, Jeremy N. Lateiner, Joseph Duffy, and Joseph V. Quattrocchi for Defendant and Respondent JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

******

Shu Di Chen (Chen) appeals the dismissal of her lawsuit. She argues that the trial court should have overruled the demurrer to her first amended complaint (FAC). However, the trial court dismissed her case because she did not appear at two noticed hearings. Because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in so dismissing, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Proceeding pro se, Chen sued Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Inc., JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) and others for engaging in unlawful business practices (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200) and sought injunctive relief. In anticipation of the case management conference (CMC) mandated by local rule 1 (Super. Ct. L.A. County, Local Rules, rule 7.9) , Chen and Chase filed CMC statements; each statement listed March 19, 2014 as the date of the conference. When Chen did not appear at the conference, the trial court issued an order to show cause (OSC) as to why the case should not be dismissed and/or why monetary sanctions should not be imposed, and set a hearing date of April 9, 2014. Chase served notice of the OSC on Chen, which included the April 9, 2014 date and specified a deadline for any written response. When Chen did not file a response or appear at the OSC hearing, the court dismissed her case, 2 pursuant to Government Code section 68608, subdivision (b) , based on Chen’s “unexcused failure to appear” at the CMC and the OSC hearing. Chen appeals. DISCUSSION In her opening brief, Chen argues that the FAC is legally sufficient. But all we have before us is the trial court’s dismissal order under section 68608, subdivision (b).