Gauna v. JPMorgan Chase Bank CA3

Filed 11/29/23 Gauna v. JPMorgan Chase Bank CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Nevada) ----

RAINN GAUNA,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C094559

v. (Super. Ct. No. CU13-079937)

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Rainn Gauna sued JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (JPMorgan Chase), Chase Home Finance, LLC (Chase Home Finance), California Reconveyance Corporation (California Reconveyance) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (Deutsche Bank) after her property was sold at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. About five and a half months after a notice of entry of judgment was served on her, Gauna filed a motion for relief from the judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b).1 She averred that in representing herself she made procedural mistakes that were excusable because of the confusion and restricted

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1

access to legal resources caused by the COVID-19 shutdown.2 The trial court denied Gauna’s motion for relief from the judgment. Although Gauna indicated in her appellate opening brief that her appeal includes the summary judgment order, her notice of appeal only identified the postjudgment order denying relief under section 473, subdivision (b). In any event, an appeal from the judgment following the order granting summary judgment would be untimely. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(B); English v. IKON Business Solutions, Inc. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 135-136.) We have no jurisdiction to review the summary judgment order, nor do we have jurisdiction to review orders denying ex parte applications that Gauna had filed before entry of the judgment. (See Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51, 56.) As for the trial court’s postjudgment order denying relief under section 473, subdivision (b), Gauna contends the trial court erred in denying the requested relief. Finding no abuse of discretion, we will affirm the trial court’s order. BACKGROUND Gauna filed a complaint against JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance, California Reconveyance, and Deutsche Bank for fraud, wrongful foreclosure, and other causes of action following a trustee’s sale of her property in Nevada County. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication in January 2020.3 Thereafter, Gauna filed motions to compel defendants to provide further responses to discovery, and defendants filed motions to compel discovery responses from Gauna.