Lalonne v. NewRez CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Jun 7, 2023 No. B312976Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment of dismissal, holding that the appeal of the initial judgment was untimely, the order regarding judicial disqualification was not appealable, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute.

Issues

Whether the appeal of the 2019 judgment of dismissal was timely filed.
Whether the trial court's order striking a statement of disqualification is an appealable order.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the action for failure to prosecute due to lack of service.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because the instant notice of appeal was not filed until April 19, 2021, any challenge to the judgment entered in favor of these defendants is untimely. We lack jurisdiction to consider it.”

“Simply put, the order plaintiff challenges is not appealable.”

“Plaintiff filed her complaint on May 24, 2018. Nearly three years later, she still had not provided proof of service on the unserved defendants, despite being given multiple opportunities to do so.”

Filed 6/6/23 Lalonne v. NewRez CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

JULIET LALONNE, B312976

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC707310) v.

NEWREZ LLC et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert B. Broadbelt III, Judge. Affirmed.

Juliet Lalonne, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Klinedinst, Ian A. Rambarran and Robert M. Shaughnessy for Defendants and Respondents. ______________________________

In a rambling and largely unintelligible brief, plaintiff and appellant Juliet Lalonne purports to appeal from a judgment of dismissal entered against her and in favor of defendants and respondents New Penn Financial, LLC (now NewRez, LLC, dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. following defendants’ successful demurrer. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Complaint and judgment in favor of defendants On May 24, 2018, plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit1 against defendants and eight others. On October 28, 2019, following an order sustaining defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, the trial court entered judgment against plaintiff and in favor of defendants. Statement of disqualification Nearly eight months later, on June 25, 2020, plaintiff filed a document titled: “1. FILE ON DEMAND [¶] 2. EMERGENCY 6/25/20 hearing [¶] 3. Motion to recuse for cause—Judge Broadbelt, 28 U.S.C. 455(a) and CCP 170.1.” The primary basis for seeking disqualification was the trial judge’s “past professional partnership in 2008 at the law firm of Dreier Stein Kahn Browne Woods George LLP where Marc Dreier was an equity partner. In or about 2009, Mr. Dreier was convicted of investment fraud.” The document presented no facts or evidence suggesting that the trial judge had any involvement with the

Lalonne v. NewRez CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

JULIET LALONNE, B312976

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief