Filed 3/18/22 Solano v. Magnum Property Investments CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

JOSE R. SOLANO,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

MAGNUM PROPERTY 

INVESTMENTS, LLC, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 B309267

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. BC708445)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Monica Bachner, Judge. Affirmed. 

Jose R. Solano, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Nussbaum, Lane M. Nussbaum and Jason J. Stillman for 

Defendants and Respondents.

____________________________
2

Defendants and respondents purchased at a trustee’s sale

real property that plaintiff and appellant Jose Solano previously

owned along with his wife (who is not a party to the lawsuit). By 

means of this lawsuit, Solano, in propria persona, sought to 

regain title to the property and requested monetary damages. 

The trial court dismissed Solano’s lawsuit following its sustaining 

of respondents’ demurrer to some of the causes of action in the 

operative complaint and granting of a motion for judgment on the 

pleadings on the remaining causes of action. 

Solano, in propria persona, appeals from the judgment of 

dismissal. On appeal, Solano fails to identify the allegations in 

his operative complaint that he claims were sufficient to state a 

cause of action. As set forth below, it was his burden on appeal to 

do so. His failure to identify allegations in the operative 

complaint to support each element of his causes of action is fatal 

to his appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. 

BACKGROUND

Documents attached to the complaint and first amended 

complaint show a grant deed dated February 5, 2007, conveying 

real property located on Bentley Court in West Covina (the 

property) to plaintiff Jose Solano and his wife. The Solanos 

borrowed $1,110,000 and secured the note with a deed of trust. 

Under the terms of the deed of trust, the trustee had the power of 

sale if the borrower breached certain promises including paying 

all amounts owed to lender.

As of August 24, 2016, the Solanos were behind in 

payments. At that time, the Solanos owed $619,978.29 in “past 

due payments plus permitted costs and expenses.” After the 

trustee recorded a notice of default and election to sell under deed 

of trust, the trustee held a trustee sale. The trustee’s deed upon 
3

sale recites that it complied with all statutory provisions under 

the deed of trust.

On February 15, 2018, Magnum Property Investments, 

LLC (Magnum) purchased the property for $1,210,000. 

According to Solano, defendant Sarina Goerisch operates 

Magnum.1 According to Solano, Magnum sold the property on 

August 15, 2019. Solano does not identify to whom Magnum sold 

the property. The only defendants and respondents are Magnum 

and Goerisch. 

The trial court sustained a demurrer to Solano’s original 

complaint with leave to amend. Solano then filed his first 

amended complaint (FAC), the operative pleading. The FAC 

asserts causes of action for quiet title, fraud, two counts of illegal 

foreclosure, illegal racketeering, cancellation of written 

instruments, intentional infliction of emotional distress, slander 

of title, illegal eviction, unjust enrichment, violation of the 

California Homeowner Bill of Rights,2 violation of the Business 

and Professions Code,

3 invasion of privacy, and declaratory 

judgment. In addition to monetary damages, Solano sought title 

1 Defendants describe Goerisch as a receptionist for 

Magnum’s manager.

2 The California Homeowner Bill of Rights refers to 

legislation passed in 2012 concerning nonjudicial foreclosure 

sales of owner-occupied real property. (Monterossa v. Superior 

Court (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 747, 749, fn. 1.) Solano did not 

include as a defendant the entity responsible for complying with 

the Homeowner Bill of Rights, his mortgage service provider. 

3 Solano does not identify the specific statute in the 

Business and Professions Code defendants allegedly violated. He 

describes the violation as “Deceptive Acts.”
4

to the property and a declaration that Magnum and Goerisch 

have no interest in the property.

It appears defendants filed a demurrer to the causes of 

action for quiet title, fraud, illegal foreclosure, and illegal 

racketeering. The demurrer is not included in the record on 

appeal. Solano filed objections to a declaration in support of the 

demurrer and a motion to strike the demurrer. The court denied 

Solano’s motion to strike the demurrer. On February 20, 2020, 

the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.

Defendants then filed an answer and an amended answer 

to the remaining causes of action in the FAC. Shortly 

afterwards, they filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on 

those causes of action, arguing that Solano failed to state any

cause of action. Solano opposed the motion for judgment on the 

pleadings. On July 20, 2020, the trial court granted the motion 

for judgment on the pleadings. In an eight-page order, the trial 

court explained its reasons for concluding Solano failed to state 

any cause of action.4 On September 8, 2020, the trial court 

entered a judgment of dismissal with prejudice.

On April 7, 2020, before the trial court entered its 

judgment, Solano filed a motion to set aside the judgment. On 

July 31, 2020, the trial court denied Solano’s motion to set aside 

the judgment. The court found the motion untimely and 

procedurally improper. On August 3, 2020, Solano filed another 

motion to vacate the judgment. The court set a hearing date for 

the motion on October 29, 2020. On September 17, 2020, Solano 

appealed from the judgment of dismissal. After noting that 

4 On appeal, Solano incorrectly contends that the trial 

court failed to address the causes of action challenged in the 

motion for judgment on the pleadings. 
5

Solano had appealed from the judgment, the trial court vacated 

the scheduled hearing on Solano’s motion to vacate the judgment.

DISCUSSION

Solano and respondents appear to argue that our review of 

the trial court’s rulings on respondents’ demurrer and motion for 

judgment on the pleading is for abuse of discretion. They are 

incorrect.

Our standard of review of an order sustaining a demurrer 

or granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings is the same. 

(Adams v. Bank of America, N.A. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 666, 670

[“A motion for judgment on the pleadings is equivalent to a 

demurrer and is governed by the same de novo standard of 

review.”].) We review a demurrer de novo to determine whether 

the plaintiff has alleged sufficient facts to state a cause of action. 

(Czajkowski v. Haskell & White, LLP (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 166, 

173.) “ ‘ “Although our review of a [demurrer] is de novo, it is 

limited to issues [that] have been adequately raised and 

supported in plaintiffs’ brief. [Citations.] Issues not raised in an 

appellant’s brief are deemed waived or abandoned. [Citation.]” ’ 

[Citation.] An appellate court ‘will not develop the appellants’ 

arguments for them . . . .’ [Citation.]” (Pfeifer v. Countrywide 

Home Loans, Inc. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1282.) 

“ ‘In order to prevail on appeal from an order sustaining a 

demurrer, the appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error. 

Specifically, the appellant must show that the facts pleaded are 

sufficient to establish every element of a cause of action and 

overcome all legal grounds on which the trial court sustained the 

demurrer.’ [Citation.]” (Save Lafayette Trees v. East Bay 

Regional Park Dist. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 21, 35.)
6

In contrast, review for abuse of discretion applies to a trial 

court’s refusal to grant leave to amend after sustaining a 

demurrer or granting a motion for judgment on the pleadings. 

The burden is on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the trial court 

abused its discretion in denying leave to amend and specifically 

how the operative complaint could be amended to state a viable 

cause of action. (In re Social Services Payment Cases (2008) 

166 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1274.) 

The foregoing principles apply even though Solano is 

representing himself on appeal in propria persona. (Nwosu v. 

Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247.) “ ‘ “The appellate court 

is not required to search the record on its own seeking error.” 

[Citation.] . . . [Citations.]’ [Citation.]” (United Grand Corp. v. 

Malibu Hillbillies, LLC (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 142, 156.)

On appeal, Solano argues the trial court erred in:

(1) dismissing his cause of action for quiet title; (2) dismissing 

his cause of action for cancellation of written instruments;

(3) granting the judgment on the pleadings; (4) cancelling trial;

and (5) failing to rule on his second motion to vacate the 

judgment.

A. Solano Demonstrates No Error in the Trial Court’s 

Sustaining the Demurrer to the Quiet Title Cause of 

Action Alleged in the First Amended Complaint

As to its sustaining of the demurrer to Solano’s quiet title 

cause of action, the trial court explained: “Plaintiff failed to 

allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for quiet title. 

Plaintiff did not allege facts showing his title to or interest in the 

subject property [or] . . . facts showing Defendants are asserting 

an adverse claim or antagonistic property interest.” The trial 

court further stated: “Civil Code §2924 ‘provides that, where the 
7

trustee delivers a deed to the buyer at the foreclosure sale, and 

the deed recites that all procedural requirements for the default 

notice and sale notice have been satisfied, there is a statutory 

rebuttable presumption that such notice requirements have been 

fulfilled; as to a BFP [bona fide purchaser for value], this 

presumption is conclusive.’ ”

On appeal, Solano argues the trial court erred in sustaining 

the demurrer to the quiet title cause of action because he set 

forth “sufficient facts” to assert a cause of action for quiet title.

Solano, however, identifies no factual allegation in the FAC 

supporting his assertion that he sufficiently pleaded the elements 

of a cause of action for quiet title. We are not required to cull the 

FAC ourselves to identify any such allegations. (United Grand 

Corp. v. Malibu Hillbillies, LLC, supra, 36 Cal.App.5th at p. 156.)

The failure to support his contention of adequate pleading 

with references to paragraphs in the FAC constitutes an 

abandonment of that contention. (Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home 

Loans, Inc., supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 1282.) 

B. Solano Demonstrates No Error in Granting 

Judgment on the Pleadings 

Solano argues that “the trial court dismissed causes of 

action five thru thirteen [including his claim for cancellation of 

written instruments] without a substantive view of these causes 

of action in the amended complaint.” He argues “there is no 

factual support in the record for the dismissal of these causes of 

actions.” Solano further contends that his “well pleaded causes of 

action were just ‘thrown out’ by the [trial] court.” On appeal, 

Solano fails to identify the elements of these causes of actions 

and to identify the purported allegations supporting each such 

element. He has thus failed to satisfy his burden on appeal to 
8

show error, to wit, to demonstrate a “well pleaded” cause of 

action. (Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., supra, 

211 Cal.App.4th at p. 1282.) 

C. Solano’s Remaining Arguments Lack Merit

Solano argues the trial court should not have cancelled the 

trial. The court properly cancelled trial because there was no 

cause of action remaining to try. 

Solano argues the trial court violated his right to due 

process by failing to rule on his second motion to vacate the 

judgment. “As a general rule, “ ‘the perfecting of an appeal stays 

proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order 

appealed from or upon the matters embraced therein or affected 

thereby . . . .’ [Citation.]” (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. 

Delfino (2015) 35 Cal.4th 180, 189, fn. omitted.) Solano does not 

argue or show why this general rule is inapplicable here. 

Finally, Solano fails to show in what manner he could 

amend the FAC to state a viable cause of action. He therefore 

fails to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in 

denying him leave to amend. (In re Social Services Payment 

Cases, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1274.) 
9

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own 

cost on appeal. 

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BENDIX, Acting P. J.

We concur:

CHANEY, J.

CRANDALL, J.*

* Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of 

the California Constitution.