Mack v. All Counties Trustee Services, Inc.

Filed 8/30/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

NOVELETTE MACK, B280650

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC564638) v.

ALL COUNTIES TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Melvin D. Sandvig, Judge. Affirmed. Jeffrey Allen Lewiston, The Law Office of Cliff Dean Schneider and Cliff Dean Schneider, for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance for Defendants and Respondents. ____________________________

Novelette Mack acquired property located at 4601 West Slauson Avenue in 2004. Through a series of transactions that Mack contends were fraudulent and a series of lawsuits Mack contends resulted in void judgments, the title to the property no longer rests with Mack. This appeal is from a December 22, 2016 order denying a motion to vacate an earlier judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d). That earlier judgment is a June 22, 2016 judgment after demurrers to Mack’s first amended complaint against Melvin Hoffman, Wayne Abb, and two companies that Hoffman allegedly owned, Creative Investment, Inc., and All Counties Trustee Services, Inc.—all of whom Mack contends were involved in the fraudulent transactions and helped secure allegedly void judgments—and a motion to strike a second amended complaint against the same parties.1

1 The January 20, 2017 notice of appeal was nominally filed from the June 2, 2016 order sustaining the demurrers to the first amended complaint and motion to strike the second amended complaint. That notice of appeal would have been untimely. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 8.104(a), 8.106(c), (e); ECC Const., Inc. v. Oak Park Calabasas Homeowners Ass’n (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 994, 998.) Counsel retained after we issued an order to show cause regarding Mack’s vexatious litigant status argued that we should deem the appeal to be from a December 22, 2016 order denying a motion for reconsideration of the demurrers and motion to strike or, in the alternative, a motion to vacate the resulting June 22, 2016 judgment. An order denying a motion for reconsideration is not independently appealable. (Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 1625, 1633; Branner v. Regents of University of California (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1043, 1050.) We therefore lack