Hacker v. Levy CA2/1

Filed 2/23/23 Hacker v. Levy CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

RON HACKER, B317325

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19STCV12728) v.

HENRI LEVY et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Theresa M. Traber, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Vincent Quigg and Vincent Quigg for Plaintiff and Appellant. Krishel Law Firm and Daniel L. Krishel for Defendants and Respondents Henri Levy, Gabriel Perez and 4865 Bakman, LLC. Hall Griffin, Howard D. Hall and Taylor R. Dalton for Defendants and Respondents Finance of America Commercial

LLC and Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Trustee of Antler Mortgage Trust 2019-RTL1. ____________________________

Plaintiff and appellant Ron Hacker appeals from two judgments, one in favor of defendants and respondents Henri Levy, Gabriel Perez, and 4865 Bakman LLC (collectively, the Levy defendants), and one in favor of defendants and respondents Finance of America Commercial LLC (FOAC) and Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB (Wilmington). Hacker contends the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment in favor of respondents, and also erred in granting an earlier motion for judgment on the pleadings in favor of FOAC. Hacker’s appellate briefing suffers from numerous serious deficiencies. First, Hacker filed two opening briefs, one for each challenged judgment. This court rejected the brief concerning the Levy defendants, advising Hacker of its policy that multiple notices of appeal from the same trial court case filed within 30 days of each other are combined into a single appeal, and therefore the appellant may file only one opening brief. Hacker took no action to combine the substance of the two briefs into a single brief, or otherwise address the deficiency in the briefing, even after respondents’ briefing argued the absence of a filed brief concerning the judgment in favor of the Levy defendants constituted forfeiture of Hacker’s challenges to that judgment. Thus, the only properly filed brief we have before us is the brief challenging the judgment as to FOAC and Wilmington. Any challenge to the judgment in favor of the Levy defendants is forfeited.