Ortiz v. Wells Fargo Bank CA2/3

Filed 1/25/16 Ortiz v. Wells Fargo Bank CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JAMES ORTIZ et al., B258913

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VC063772) v.

WELLS FARGO BANK et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Roger Ito, Judge. Affirmed. James Ortiz, in pro. per., and Yolanda Y. Ortiz, in pro. per., for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Wright Finlay & Zak, T. Robert Finlay and Kristina M. Pelletier for Defendants and Respondents.

_________________________

Plaintiffs and appellants James Ortiz and Yolanda Y. Ortiz (the Ortizes), in propria persona, appeal an order of dismissal following the sustaining of the demurrers of defendants and respondents Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells) and Citibank, N.A., as trustee for American Home Mortgage Assets Trust 2006-3, Mortgage Backed Pass- Through Certificates Series 2006-3 (Citibank) (collectively, the Banks) to the Ortizes’ first amended complaint without leave to amend.1 Because the Ortizes have failed to meet their burden as the appellants to present an adequate record for review, the order of dismissal is affirmed. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The record on appeal is limited to a minimal clerk’s transcript, consisting of the following documents: a notice of continued case management conference; an order dismissing the action following the sustaining of the Banks’ demurrers without leave to amend; a notice of entry of the order of dismissal; a minute order sustaining the demurrers without leave to amend and placing the case management conference off calendar; the notice of appeal; postjudgment orders awarding the Banks $2,043 in costs and awarding Citibank $9,768 in attorney fees; notice of designation of the record on appeal and notice to reporter to prepare transcript on appeal; and proofs of service. The Ortizes did not designate for inclusion in the clerk’s transcript a copy of their original complaint or first amended complaint, the Banks’ demurrers thereto, a copy of their motion for a continuance, or a copy of the disqualification motion which they allegedly filed on July 23, 2014. With respect to the nature of the controversy, all we can glean from the record (from the superior court case summary and from the ruling on Citibank’s motion for