Filed 4/15/13 Sandoval v. Chase Fufillment Center CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

JUAN R. SANDOVAL et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

CHASE FULFILLMENT CENTER, N.A., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

F064156

(Super. Ct. No. 11CECG02161)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Alan M. 

Simpson, Judge.

Juan Sandoval and Gudelia Sandoval, in pro. per., for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

AlvaradoSmith, John M. Sorich, S. Christopher Yoo and Jacob M. Clark for 

Defendant and Respondent JPMorgan Chase Bank.

Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler, Glenn H. Wechsler and Natalie Sperry 

Mandelin for Defendant and Respondent First American Trustee Servicing Solutions.

 

* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J. and Kane, J.
2.

-ooOooAppellants, Juan Sandoval and Gudelia Sandoval, filed a complaint against 

respondents, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMorgan Chase) and First American Trustee 

Servicing Solutions, LLC (First American), seeking damages for fraud and negligent 

misrepresentation in connection with their application for a modification of their home 

loan. According to appellants, although they provided JPMorgan Chase with all of the 

requested documents and paid an additional $2,000 per month toward their mortgage for 

seven months, JPMorgan Chase nevertheless refused to modify the loan and initiated 

nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings against them. 

Respondents demurred to the complaint. The trial court sustained the demurrers 

on the ground that appellants failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. 

Regarding the cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, the court determined that 

appellants had not alleged that the statements were made with intent to induce reliance or 

that they actually relied on those statements. The court further determined that appellants 

had not alleged any of the elements of a cause of action for fraud. The court granted 

appellants 10 days leave to amend the complaint with the time to run from service of the 

minute order.

Appellants did not file an amended complaint. Thereafter, on respondents’ 

applications for dismissal, the trial court dismissed the complaint and entered judgments 

in respondents’ favor.

Appellants have appealed from the judgment entered in favor of JPMorgan Chase. 

According to appellants, they were confused by the ruling on the demurrers and were not 

aware that they had to file an amended complaint. Further, appellants contend that the 

trial court delivered its decision on the application for dismissal before appellants were 

permitted to comment. Appellants acknowledge that they erred but argue that it “was not 

intentional due to lack of knowledge in the court proceedings” and ask this court “to 

consider granting the appeal to resolve [JPMorgan] Chase’s inhumane intentional fraud 
3.

and deception.” Although no appeal was taken from the judgment entered in favor of 

First American, First American has nevertheless filed a responding brief “in an 

abundance of caution.”

Appellants have not met their burden to show reversible error. Accordingly, the 

judgment will be affirmed.

DISCUSSION

Because appellants failed to file an amended complaint following the sustaining of 

the demurrer, the trial court dismissed the action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 

section 581, subdivision (f)(2). The authority to dismiss this action rested in the trial 

court’s sound discretion. (Harding v. Collazo (1986) 177 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1054.) 

Accordingly, this court will not disturb the trial court’s ruling unless appellants establish 

that the trial court abused its discretion. (Ibid.) 

Appellants appear to argue that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing 

their complaint because Juan Sandoval was not able to comment on JPMorgan Chase’s 

ex parte application before the trial court made its ruling. However, contrary to 

appellants’ position, the trial court permitted Sandoval to state his appearance and make 

his argument before making a final ruling. Sandoval objected to the application to 

dismiss his case on the ground that at the status conference, when the case was set for 

trial, there was no indication that the case would be dismissed. After JPMorgan Chase’s 

counsel responded, the trial court told Sandoval that it would “look over the matter once 

again, having heard what you had to offer today, and you’ll receive the decision of the 

Court in the mail.”

Appellants also argue that the judgment of dismissal should be reversed because 

their failure to amend the complaint was not intentional and was due to their confusion 

and lack of knowledge of court proceedings. However, while a party may choose to act 

as his or her own attorney, such a party is to be treated like any other party. He or she is 

entitled to the same, but no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys. 
4.

(Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247.) Accordingly, the in propria 

persona litigant is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney. (County 

of Orange v. Smith (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1444.) Therefore, appellants’ lack of 

knowledge does not excuse their failure to timely amend their complaint. 

 In sum, appellants have not met their burden of establishing that the trial court 

abused its discretion when it dismissed their complaint.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondents.