Schneider v. Bank of America CA3

Filed 3/24/21 Schneider v. Bank of America CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Amador) ----

CHRISTOPHER SCHNEIDER, C091181

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 19CVC11425)

v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Christopher Schneider filed an appeal from an order denying a motion for a temporary restraining order and motion for an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction. We dismiss the appeal as taken from a nonappealable order. BACKGROUND On November 5, 2019, Schneider filed a class action civil complaint1 against Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America) and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation

1 Schneider’s complaint contains no class allegations. Code of Civil Procedure section 382 provides that a class action may be brought “when the question is one of a common or general interest, of many persons, or when the parties are numerous, and it is

1

(Freddie Mac) alleging Bank of America and Freddie Mac engaged in an unlawful foreclosure scheme, locked him out of his own home, and caused him to suffer great emotional and physical distress. The complaint includes causes of action for theft, intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and other state and federal causes. On the same day, he filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and for an order to show cause for a preliminary injunction (motion). The motion was heard on November 15, 2019. After the hearing, the trial court issued its order stating, “[Schneider’s] Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause for a Preliminary Injunction is denied without prejudice as Plaintiff has failed to provide timely proof of service as to Defendants pursuant to [California Rules of Court, rule] 3.1150(a).” (Italics added.) Schneider filed a notice of appeal from the order denying the motion.2 DISCUSSION “The existence of an appealable judgment is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal.” (Jennings v. Marralle (1994) 8 Cal.4th 121, 126.) Whenever doubt exists regarding the appealability of a judgment or order, this court must consider the issue on its own initiative. (Ibid.) Upon consideration, we conclude the appeal must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.