Solano v. Magnum Property Investments CA2/1

Filed 3/18/22 Solano v. Magnum Property Investments CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

JOSE R. SOLANO, B309267

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC708445) v.

MAGNUM PROPERTY INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Monica Bachner, Judge. Affirmed. Jose R. Solano, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Nussbaum, Lane M. Nussbaum and Jason J. Stillman for Defendants and Respondents. ____________________________

Defendants and respondents purchased at a trustee’s sale real property that plaintiff and appellant Jose Solano previously owned along with his wife (who is not a party to the lawsuit). By means of this lawsuit, Solano, in propria persona, sought to regain title to the property and requested monetary damages. The trial court dismissed Solano’s lawsuit following its sustaining of respondents’ demurrer to some of the causes of action in the operative complaint and granting of a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the remaining causes of action. Solano, in propria persona, appeals from the judgment of dismissal. On appeal, Solano fails to identify the allegations in his operative complaint that he claims were sufficient to state a cause of action. As set forth below, it was his burden on appeal to do so. His failure to identify allegations in the operative complaint to support each element of his causes of action is fatal to his appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND Documents attached to the complaint and first amended complaint show a grant deed dated February 5, 2007, conveying real property located on Bentley Court in West Covina (the property) to plaintiff Jose Solano and his wife. The Solanos borrowed $1,110,000 and secured the note with a deed of trust. Under the terms of the deed of trust, the trustee had the power of sale if the borrower breached certain promises including paying all amounts owed to lender. As of August 24, 2016, the Solanos were behind in payments. At that time, the Solanos owed $619,978.29 in “past due payments plus permitted costs and expenses.” After the trustee recorded a notice of default and election to sell under deed of trust, the trustee held a trustee sale. The trustee’s deed upon