Hernandez v. Wells Fargo Bank CA2/3

Filed 8/10/15 Hernandez v. Wells Fargo Bank CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

ELIZABETH MARIE HERNANDEZ, B252079

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. EC059728) v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, William D. Stewart, Judge. Dismissed. Elizabeth Hernandez, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Houser & Allison, Robert W. Norman and Jeannette R. Marsala for Defendants and Respondents Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee under Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2006 Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC Trust 2006-HE2 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006 HE2; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Western Progressive, LLC; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC; and Barclay’s Capital Real Estate, Inc. dba Homeq Servicing. _________________________

INTRODUCTION Plaintiff and appellant Elizabeth Hernandez sued defendants and appellants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee under Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2006 Securitized Asset Backed Receivables LLC Trust 2006-HE2 Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006 HE2; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; Western Progressive, LLC; Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC; and Barclay’s Capital Real Estate, Inc. dba Homeq Servicing (collectively, defendants) to prevent a foreclosure of real property. Defendants’ demurrer was sustained without leave to amend, and the trial court issued an order of dismissal. Hernandez does not appeal that order of dismissal and instead purports to appeal from subsequent orders of the trial court denying her relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 4731 and temporarily staying dissolution of a preliminary injunction. Because the orders are not appealable, we dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Factual background. On April 26, 2006, Hernandez executed a note in the amount of $516,000 secured by a deed of trust against property located at 330 North Griffith Park Drive (the Property).2 She stopped making payments in 2008, and a notice of default was recorded in January 2011. After a notice of trustee’s sale was recorded, the Property was sold at a foreclosure sale in June 2014. II. Procedural background. A. The pleadings and demurrers. On November 26, 2012, Hernandez filed her complaint for negligence, fraud and deceit, fraud by trick and device, an accounting, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quiet title, and for declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court temporarily restrained