Flate v. Nationstar Mortgage CA2/3

Filed 6/22/23 Flate v. Nationstar Mortgage CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

RONALD A. FLATE et al., B316668

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC715466) v.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen Goorvitch, Judge. Affirmed. Rodriguez Law Group and Patricia Rodriguez for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, Justin D. Balser and Katalina Baumann for Defendant and Respondent.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

Plaintiffs and appellants Ronald A. Flate and Greta Flate (the Flates) appeal from the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant and respondent Nationstar Mortgage, LLC (Nationstar). The Flates have forfeited their arguments on appeal by failing to provide an adequate record. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND According to the superior court docket, in July 2018, the Flates filed a complaint in this action. It is not clear from the record who was named as a defendant or defendants. In January 2019, the Flates filed an amended complaint, naming Nationstar and “Mr. Cooper” as defendants. Nationstar filed an answer in June 2019. In July 2021, Nationstar moved for summary judgment. In September 2021, the Flates filed their opposition to summary judgment and Nationstar filed its reply. That same month, the trial court held a hearing on the motion, which it granted. The trial court entered judgment in favor of Nationstar in October 2021. The Flates timely appealed. DISCUSSION The Flates argue the trial court erred in dismissing their claims for violation of Civil Code section 2924.11 and breach of contract. According to their opening brief, these claims are related to the Flates’ mortgage and their applications for a loan modification. Nationstar contends the Flates have failed to overcome the presumption that the trial court’s judgment is correct because they have not provided an adequate record on appeal. Nationstar further argues the Flates have waived their