Ellis v. Bank of Am.
| Decision Date | 08 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | E075493 |
| Parties | ALESIA ELLIS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. et al., Defendants and Respondents |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County No CIVDS1812687, Donald R. Alvarez, Judge. Affirmed.
Richland & Associates and Felipa Richland; Stoller Law Group and Michael T. Stoller for Plaintiff and Appellant.
McGUIREWOODS, Tanya L. Greene and Adam F. Summerfield for Defendants and Respondents.
In 2006, plaintiff and appellant Alesia Ellis's mother obtained a mortgage loan (the loan) secured by real property located in Yucca Valley (the property). The property was eventually sold in a nonjudicial foreclosure in January 2015. As a result, both plaintiff and her mother filed a civil suit against multiple financial institutions, including defendants and respondents Bank of America, N.A. and Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (collectively, BOA defendants),[1] in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, bearing case No. CIVDS1503108 (Ellis I).
While Ellis I was still pending, plaintiff's mother died and plaintiff was appointed the administrator of her mother's estate. Instead of seeking leave to amend the pleading in Ellis I, plaintiff filed a new suit in May 2018, bearing case No. CIVDS1812687 (Ellis II). The original complaint in Ellis II acknowledged that it was based upon the same facts asserted in Ellis I and that the two matters should be decided together, but it did not name BOA defendants as parties. However, on December 5, 2018, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint in Ellis II, adding all of the factual allegations and all of the named defendants from the original complaint in Ellis I.
In May 2019, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Ellis I in response to a motion to compel discovery responses. BOA defendants then answered the first amended complaint in Ellis II and moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure[2] section 438. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings; denied plaintiff's separately filed motion for leave to file a second amended complaint; entered judgment in favor of BOA defendants; and denied a motion for reconsideration. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment, arguing that the trial court (1) erred in granting judgment on the pleadings; (2) abused its discretion in denying leave to file a second amended complaint; and (3) abused its discretion in denying a subsequent motion for reconsideration. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment.
On March 6, 2015, plaintiff and her mother filed their original complaint in Ellis I against multiple financial institutions, including BOA defendants. The complaint alleged that plaintiff and her mother resided on the property; plaintiff's mother obtained the loan secured by the property in 2006; plaintiff's mother was wrongfully denied a modification of the loan in 2010; the property was wrongfully encumbered by the lender in 2014; and that the property was wrongfully subjected to a nonjudicial foreclosure sale in January 2015. Based upon these allegations, the complaint purported to state causes of action for (1) violation of Civil Code section 2923.5; (2) wrongful foreclosure; (3) injunctive relief; (4) fraud; (5) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (6) slander of title; (7) quiet title; (8) declaratory relief; and (9) rescission of the loan instruments.
The complaint in Ellis I was subjected to multiple pleading challenges and amended multiple times. Ultimately, plaintiff dismissed herself from the action instead of amending the complaint in response to the trial court's decision to sustain a demurrer for lack of standing. However, Ellis I proceeded with respect to the claims brought by plaintiff's mother.
While Ellis I was still pending, plaintiff's mother died and plaintiff was appointed the administrator of her mother's estate. On May 24, 2018, plaintiff filed a new complaint and initiated a new case in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County in her capacity as the administrator of her mother's estate, Ellis II. The initial complaint in Ellis II consisted of a largely blank judicial council form as well as a document entitled "Summons Complaint." The documents did not purport to set forth any causes of action or name BOA defendants as parties but instead alluded to the causes of action already alleged in Ellis I and requested the court to "hold these cases together until all issues are heard."
On December 5, 2018, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint in Ellis II. This first amended complaint added all of the factual allegations and named defendants identified in the original complaint in Ellis I.[3] Based upon these allegations, plaintiff purported to state causes of action for (1) violation of Civil Code section 2923.5; (2) wrongful foreclosure; (3) injunctive relief; (4) fraud in the concealment; (5) fraud in the inducement; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) slander of title; (8) quiet title; (9) declaratory relief; and (10) rescission/cancellation of the loan instruments.
On May 6, 2019, plaintiff orally moved to dismiss Ellis I in open court in response to motions to compel discovery responses, and the trial court ordered Ellis I dismissed without prejudice.
On June 4, 2019, BOA defendants answered the first amended complaint in Ellis II and, on November 5, 2019, they filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. BOA defendants advanced numerous grounds in their motion, including arguments that the claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata; plaintiff lacked standing to assert any claims in her individual capacity; and that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
On February 14, 2020, the trial court held a combined hearing on BOA defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings as well as a separately filed motion by plaintiff seeking leave to file a second amended complaint. The trial court granted a request for judicial notice of documents related to the proceedings in Ellis I; granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants; and denied plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. The trial court was not asked to and did not provide any explanation for its decision to grant judgment on the pleading, either in writing or orally on the record.
On appeal, plaintiff argues the judgment must be reversed because the trial court (1) erred in granting judgment on the pleadings; (2) abused its discretion in denying leave to file a second amended complaint; and (3) abused its discretion in denying her motion for reconsideration. We disagree with each of these contentions and affirm the judgment.
We first address plaintiff's contention that the trial court erred in granting BOA defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. While we disagree with many of the arguments asserted by the parties on appeal, our independent review of the first amended complaint and matters subject to judicial notice leads us to conclude that the motion was properly granted.
" " (People ex rel. Harris v. Pac Anchor Transportation, Inc. (2014) 59 Cal.4th 772, 777; see Greif v. Sanin (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 412, 426.) (Bear Creek Master Assn. v. Southern California Investors, Inc. (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 809, 817.)
Additionally," '[w]e review the disposition, not the court's reasons for that disposition.'" (Greif v. Sanin, supra, 74 Cal.App.5th at p.426.) Thus," '[i]f the trial court's ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is correct upon any theory of law applicable to the case, we will affirm it, even if we may disagree with the trial court's rationale.' . . . This is because we review the validity of the ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings and not the reasons given." (Tukes v. Richard (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 1, 19; Dodlinger v. Los Angeles County Regional Park &Open Space Dist. (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 994, 998 [same]; Julian Volunteer Fire Co. Assn. v. Julian-Cuyamaca Fire Protection Dist. (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 583, 598 [].)
On appeal, plaintiff argues the trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings because it improperly considered matters outside the pleading and improperly resolved factual disputes in order to grant the motion. However," 'a trial court is presumed to ignore material it knows is incompetent, irrelevant, or inadmissible,'" and" '[o]nly proof that the evidence actually figured in the court's decision will overcome these presumptions.'" (Hayward v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 10, 60-61.)
In this case, the record does not contain a statement of decision written ruling setting...
To continue reading
Request your trial