Zulli v. Litton Loan Servicing CA2/6

Filed 6/3/13 Zulli v. Litton Loan Servicing CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

BRIAN ZULLI, 2d Civil No. B242310 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2010-00383828-CU- Plaintiff and Appellant, OR-SIM) (Ventura County) v.

LITTON LOAN SERVICING LP et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Brian Zulli appeals the order dismissing his complaint against respondents Litton Loan Servicing LP (Litton), and Wells Fargo Bank NA (Wells Fargo),1 following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. Appellant contends he sufficiently pled causes of action against respondents for fraud and unfair competition (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200), based on their involvement in the nonjudicial foreclosure on his now- deceased mother's residence. We affirm.2

1 Wells Fargo is sued in its capacity as trustee for Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust, Inc., Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-SHLI. 2 At oral argument, appellant asked us to enter a default judgment in his favor because "the wrong defendants" were in court. Appellant also challenged respondents' assertion that he is appealing from an order of dismissal in their favor. According to appellant, "there is no such order." These assertions are belied by the record. The notice of appeal plainly indicates that the appeal is from the trial court's May 22, 2012, order "dismissing all defendants." That order clearly identifies respondents as the parties who demurred to the complaint, and further states that the demurrer was sustained without leave to amend and that respondents "are dismissed from this action with prejudice." The

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The relevant facts are largely derived from our recent decision affirming the dismissal of appellant's complaint against codefendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend. (Zulli v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (Feb. 5, 2013, B237041 [nonpub. opn.].) In February 2006, appellant's mother Sylvia Zulli obtained a $1,250,000 loan from Quick Loan Funding, Inc. (Quick Loan) for the purchase of a residence in Moorpark (the property). In exchange for the loan, Sylvia3 executed a promissory note secured by a deed of trust naming MERS as beneficiary. In January 2009, all beneficial interest under the deed of trust was assigned to Wells Fargo. Litton, acting as Wells Fargo's attorney in fact, substituted the Wolf Law Firm as trustee under the deed of trust. Notices of default and trustee's sale were recorded after Sylvia failed to make several payments on the loan. Sylvia filed a complaint against MERS, Quick Loan, Wells Fargo, Litton and others alleging, among other things, that the January 2009 assignment of deed of trust and substitution of trustee were invalid. Sylvia died in May 2010. On October 28, 2010, the trial court dismissed Sylvia's complaint against MERS, Quick Loan, Wells Fargo and Litton after sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. Appellant was subsequently granted leave to continue the action as Sylvia's personal representative and successor in interest (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.31). His appeal from the judgment in favor of respondents was dismissed as untimely. Appellant then filed the instant action in his own capacity. MERS was dismissed from the complaint after the court sustained its demurrer to the first amended