Horner v. Bank of New York Mellon CA4/3

Filed 6/15/21 Horner v. Bank of New York Mellon CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

NANCY M. HORNER,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G058393

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2017-00920620)

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, OPINION as Trustee, etc. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, James L. Crandall, Judge. Affirmed. Nancy M. Horner, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Akerman, Justin D. Balser and Katalina Baumann for Defendants and Respondents. * * *

Plaintiff Nancy M. Horner appeals from a judgment terminating her action with prejudice against defendants The Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee for Structured Asset Securities Corporation Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-16 (BONY) and Nationstar Mortgage LLC (Nationstar). She contends the court erred by granting terminating sanctions to “punish” her for filing notices regarding certain bankruptcy cases and for seeking to stay the action. Because the record does not support plaintiff’s claim or show the court abused its discretion, we affirm the judgment. FACTS In 2017, plaintiff filed the operative complaint against BONY, Nationstar, the Wolf Law Firm, and Aurora Loan Services, LLC (Aurora). According to the complaint, the foreclosure sale of plaintiff’s home to BONY was improper due to a void assignment of the deed of trust. The complaint accordingly alleged claims for wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, cancellation of instruments, slander of title, violation of the California Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, and unfair business practices. In January 2019, BONY and Nationstar filed a motion (Motion) for 1 terminating sanctions or, in the alternative, evidentiary and monetary sanctions. They argued plaintiff violated court orders requiring her to respond to discovery, produce a privilege log, and pay monetary sanctions. In February 2019, plaintiff filed an opposition and argued sanctions were improper because she did not violate any discovery order. In February 2019, the court issued a tentative ruling granting the Motion as to an evidentiary sanction but denying the Motion as to terminating sanctions. The court