Lee v. Bac Home Loan Services

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 9/4/13  Lee v. Bac Home Loan Services CA2/7

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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
SEVEN

 

 
>

YOUNGSOO S. LEE,               Plaintiff and Appellant,               v.   BAC HOME LOAN SERVICES et al.,               Defendants and Respondents.

B244353         (Los Angeles County       Super. Ct. No. KC063752)

 

 

 

 

                        APPEAL
from an order of the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Los Angeles
County,  Robert A.
Dukes, Judge.  Affirmed. 

 

                        Youngsoo
S. Lee, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

 

                        Bryan
Cave, Christopher L. Dueringer and
Paul J. Rogoff for Defendants and Respondents. 


 

___________________________

            Youngsoo Lee filed
a three-page opening brief in which he says he appeals from the dismissal of
his complaint against Bank of America, N.A. (successor by merger of BAC Home
Loan Services, L.P. (erroneously sued as BAC Home Loan Services)) and Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (erroneously sued as MERSCORP) (hereafter
Bank of America), relating to a non-judicial foreclosure sale of his real
property, apparently after its demurrer to his complaint was sustained without
leave to amend, but argues the trial court erred in rejecting his motion for
new trial predicated on new evidence.href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1" title="">^[1]  Without explanation or any citations to the
record, he sets out a number of provisions of Title 15, section 77 (but no
other authorities), mentions “security-based swaps” and says he had a federally
secured loan so “the matter is precluded from a State Court, wherein they lack
subject jurisdiction” as a matter of “preemption of State law.”  He says he seeks “[r]emand[] to the District
Court.”  The brief is otherwise
unintelligible. 

            According to the
clerk’s transcript, the trial court issued a tentative ruling on Bank of
America’s demurrer to Lee’s complaint (filed in May 2012), indicating the court
had granted Bank of America’s request for judicial notice of “Exhibits A-S,”
which established that Lee had previously filed a complaint in federal court
(in July 2011), predicated on identical allegations regarding predatory
lending, improper securitization and wrongful foreclosure, and in February
2012, the federal court had dismissed Lee’s claims with prejudice.href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2" title="">^[2]  The trial court concluded the doctrine of res
judicata barred Lee’s May 2012 complaint. 
Although Lee had failed to address the res judicata bar in his
opposition to Bank of America’s demurrer, the trial court indicated the court
would hear from Lee regarding whether leave to amend was warranted. 

            According to the trial
court’s order, after reading and considering all papers filed and after hearing
and considering oral argument, the request for href="http://www.mcmillanlaw.com/">judicial notice was granted, Bank of
America’s demurrer to Lee’s complaint was sustained without leave to amend on
the ground all claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata (among other
grounds) and Lee’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice.href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">^[3]    

            The trial court’s
“judgment is presumed to be correct, and it is appellant’s burden to
affirmatively show error.  (Denham v.
Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564 [86 Cal. Rptr. 65, 468 P.2d
193].)  To demonstrate error, appellant
must present meaningful legal analysis supported by citations to authority and
citations to facts in the record that support the claim of error.  (City of Lincoln v. Barringer (2002)
102 Cal.App.4th 1211, 1239, fn. 16 [126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 178]; In re Marriage
of Nichols (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 661, 672–673, fn. 3 [33 Cal. Rptr. 2d
13].)  When a point is asserted without
argument and authority for the proposition, ‘it is deemed to be without
foundation and requires no discussion by the reviewing court.’ (Atchley v.
City of Fresno [(1984)] 151 Cal. App. 3d [635,] 647; accord, Berger v.
Godden [(1985)]163 Cal. App. 3d [1113,] 1117 [failure of appellant to
advance any pertinent or intelligible legal argument … constitute[s] an
abandonment of the [claim of error”].) 
Hence, conclusory claims of error will fail.”  (In re S.C. (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th
396, 408.)   

            The order
of dismissal is affirmed.  Bank of
America is entitled to recover its costs on appeal.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                        >WOODS, J. 


 

 

We concur:

 

 

 

                        PERLUSS,
P. J.                                                                   ZELON,
J.