De Jesus v. Aurora Loan Services CA2/3

Filed 6/12/15 De Jesus v. Aurora Loan Services CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

BRIGIDA LACAYANGA DE JESUS et al., B251852

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KC064539) v.

AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dan Thomas Oki, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Office of Lotfy Mrich and Lotfy Mrich, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Akerman and Justin D. Balser, for Defendants and Respondents.

_________________________

Plaintiffs are former occupants of a home on which the lender foreclosed in 2009 or 2010. In this action, plaintiffs assert tort claims based on the alleged removal of plaintiffs’ personal property from the home following the foreclosure and plaintiffs’ eviction from the premises. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend, concluding among other things that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue their claims. We find no error, and thus we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Background Plaintiff Sumikat Castelone De Jesus (Sumikat) is the former owner of real property located at 3224 Stella Avenue, West Covina, California (the property). Sumikat and his wife Brigida Lacayanga De Jesus (Brigida) occupied the property for several years; however, after Sumikat allegedly ceased making payments on a loan secured by the property, the property was sold at a trustee sale and the De Jesuses were evicted. Apparently in connection with the sale of the property and their eviction from it, Sumikat filed two separate bankruptcy proceedings.1 The first, filed July 7, 2011, was dismissed the same month, apparently for failure to file required schedules, statements, or a plan. The second, filed June 15, 2012, resulted in a bankruptcy discharge on September 28, 2012. Brigida also filed several bankruptcy proceedings. One proceeding, filed July 22, 2011, was dismissed, apparently because Brigida failed to appear at a meeting of creditors. The second, an adversary proceeding, was filed November 15, 2011, and dismissed October 4, 2012. The third, filed September 5, 2012, resulted in a bankruptcy discharge on December 28, 2012.