Filed 5/4/17 Shetty v. Standard Pacific Mortgage CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE
SATISH SHETTY,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
STANDARD PACIFIC MORTGAGE,
INC.,
Defendant and Respondent.
B272283
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BC573820)
ORDER MODIFYING
OPINION
[NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]
The opinion filed on May 1, 2017 is modified as follows:
1. In the caption, “STANDARD PACIFIC MORTGAGE, INC.
formally known as FAMILY LENDING SERVICES, INC. et al.,” is
replaced with “STANDARD PACIFIC MORTGAGE, INC.,”
2. On page 2, line 2, “dismissing his appeal” is replaced with
“dismissing his complaint”
3. On page 3, line 6, “as they relate” is replaced with “as it relates”
_______________ _______________ _______________
TURNER, P.J. BAKER, J. KIN, J.
Filed 5/1/17 Shetty v. Standard Pacific Mortgage CA2/5 (unmodified version)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FIVE
SATISH SHETTY,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
STANDARD PACIFIC MORTGAGE,
INC. formally known as FAMILY
LENDING SERVICES, INC. et al.,
Defendant and Respondent.
B272283
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BC573820)
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Michael Johnson, Judge. Dismissed.
Satish Shetty, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Finlayson Toffer Roosevelt & Lilly and Jesse S. Finlayson
for Defendant and Respondent.
3
Plaintiff, Satish Shetty, purports to appeal from an order
dismissing his appeal which challenged the foreclosure on and
the securitization of a loan. Defendant, Standard Pacific
Mortgage formerly known as Family Lending Services, Inc., has
moved to dismiss the appeal. We agree that plaintiff’s notice of
appeal was not timely filed as to defendant.
On August 26, 2015, defendant’s demurrer to the complaint
was sustained without leave to amend and the case dismissed in
a written order executed by the trial court. On August 31, 2015,
the notice of entry of the judgment was filed as to the August 26,
2015 dismissal. There were codefendants who also challenged
plaintiff’s complaint. On April 8, 2016, judgment on the
pleadings was entered in the codefendants’ favor. The notice of
appeal as to defendant was filed on May 13, 2016.
The notice of appeal is untimely as to the August 26, 2015
dismissal order. The notice of appeal was filed more than 60 days
after service of the notice of entry of the dismissal order in
violation of California Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(B). Hence,
the appeal must be dismissed. (Adoption of Alexander S. (1988)
44 Cal.3d 857, 862-864; Hollister Convalescent Hosp. Inc. v. Rico
(1975) 15 Cal.3d 660, 674.)
There is no merit to plaintiff’s argument that the one
judgment rule extended the time to file the notice of appeal.
According to plaintiff, he had until after resolution of the
codefendants’ judgment on the pleadings motions to file his notice
of appeal from the August 26, 2015 dismissal. This contention
has no merit. The August 26, 2015 dismissal order was
immediately appealable as it was a final disposition of all
disputes between defendant and plaintiff. (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.104(e); see Mid-Wilshire Associates v. O’Leary (1992) 7
4
Cal.App.4th 1450, 1454.) The April 8, 2016 filing of the judgment
on the pleadings did not extend the time to file the notice of
appeal. (Ellis v. Ellis (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 837, 842; Laraway
v. Pasadena Unified School Dist. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 579, 583.)
Thus, the one final judgment rule does not extend the time to file
plaintiff’s notice of appeal as they relate to his claims against
defendant. (Justus v. Atchison (1977) 19 Cal.3d 564, 568,
disapproved on another point in Ochoa v. Superior Court (1985)
39 Cal.3d. 159, 171; Barton v. Ahmanson Developments, Inc.
(1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1358, 1361.)
The purported appeal is dismissed as to all claims against
defendant, Standard Pacific Mortgage formerly known as Family
Lending Services, Inc. Defendant shall recover its costs incurred
on appeal from plaintiff, Satish Shetty.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE
OFFICIAL REPORTS
TURNER, P. J.
We concur:
BAKER, J.
KIN, J.


Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California
Constitution.