Aman v. Nationstar Mortgage CA2/3

Filed 3/16/23 Aman v. Nationstar Mortgage CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

ABDUL WASSY AMAN, B289755

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. KC067435, v. KC068745)

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert A. Dukes, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of Lotfy Mrich and Lotfy Mrich, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders and Jared D. Bissell for Defendants and Respondents.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Abdul Wassy Aman appeals from a judgment apparently entered in favor of defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC (Nationstar), Aurora Loan Services LLC (Aurora), and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas as Trustee for Residential Accredit Loans, Inc. Pass Through Certificates 2006-Q03 (Deutsche Bank) (collectively, the lenders),1 after the trial court granted lenders’ motion for summary judgment in its entirety. Although Aman’s brief is difficult to decipher, he appears to claim that triable issues of fact exist as to his claims that Aurora failed to disclose material information and provide notice of assignment, that Aurora and Nationstar’s failure to fulfill their promise to offer Aman a loan modification breached their implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and amounted to promissory estoppel, and that Deutsche Bank lacked authority to foreclose due to several omissions and infirmities in the notice of default that Aman received. Aman also claims that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied him a continuance to conduct discovery as to Deutsche Bank. However, Aman has failed to show error because he has provided an inadequate record and briefing on appeal. As a result, we affirm. DISCUSSION A. We must affirm the judgment because of the inadequate record and appellant’s brief 1. The record On appeal, Aman has failed to include in the record the