1

Filed 8 / 23 /22 Mejia v. San Francisco Assessor Recorder CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

JOSE MEJIA, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. SAN FRANCISCO ASSESSOR RECORDER, Defendant and Respondent. A 164132
( San Francisco City & County Super. Ct. No. CPF

- 21

- 517388 )

After petitioner Jose Mejia defaulted on a loan secured by a deed of trust on real property on Meda Avenue in San Francisco, the property was sold at a trustee’s sale . Mejia later submitted a form to the San Francisco
Assessor Recorder purporting to transfer his lender ’s interest in the property to himself. The trial court denied Mejia’s petition for a writ of administrative
mandamus directing the reco r der’s office to accept the form for filing , and Mejia appeals in propria persona . We affirm.
BACKGROUND In 2013, pet itioner Jose Mejia and his wife Cindy Mejia mortgaged real property on Meda Ave nue in San Francisco, borrowing $326,700 from JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA (Chase)

. T wo additional loans were later secured by the Meda Avenue property , including a $106,000 loan ma de by Bank of America, N.A. , secured by a deed of trust recorded on May 19, 2016.2

On January 22, 2019, a n otice of d efault was recorded on the Meda
Avenue property because the $106,000 loan was in default. On April 25, a n otice of t rustee s ale was recorded , and on May 23, t he property was sold at a t rustee s ale. On June 12, a trustee’s deed was recorded indicating that Paper Atlas had acquired the proper ty and the unpaid debt on loans secured by the property. On September 12, Mejia submitted a “ Change of Ownership Statement ”
on Form BOE

- 502 to the San Francisco Assessor Recorder’s O ffice requesting a transfer to “Jose Mejia sole owner , correction d ue t o slander of title by Paper Atlas.”
On April 17, 2020, a d eed of reconveyance was recorded acknowledging
the payment of the Chase mortgage and indicating Chase no longer h eld a security interest in the property.
On January 19, 2021, Mejia attempted to record a g rant d eed with the
San Francisco Assessor Recorder’s Office seeking to transfer JP Morgan Chase’s interest in the property to himself

. That recording was rejected because the legal description of the property , the g rantor’s signatur e , and
notarization of the g rantor’s signature were all missing

. On March 4, Mejia filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in San Francisco Superior Court , and on August 28 , an amended petition

. The petition sought a writ of mandate, pursua nt to Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5, directing the recorder’s office to “accept and file” a “Change of Ownership Statement” on Form BOE

- 502 , attached as an exhibit to the petition. The form, dated March 3, purport ed to transfer Chase’s interest in the property to Mejia

. Under “Type of Transfer,” the box “Other” was checked, followed by the text “Trustee has been paid.”3

On November 12, the trial court sustained the San Francisco Assessor
Recorder ’s demurrer to the amended petition : “Respondent San Francisco Assessor Recorder’s demurrer to petitioner
Jose Mejia’s ‘ammended [ sic ] petition for writ of adminisdtrative [ sic ] mandamus’ is sustained on each of its three grounds. First, the petition is unverified and thus procedurally defective. Second, a writ of administrative mandamus addresses a ‘final administrative order or decision made as a result of a proceeding in which by law’ a hearing is held, evidence taken and facts determined. ( [ C ode C iv. P roc. , §] 1094.5 [, subd.] (a).) The filing and recording of title documents is not such an order or decision, so the petition fails to state a cognizable claim. Third, petitioner fails to plead that he had an ownership interest in 48 Meda Avenue, San Fr ancisco, when the Chase loan secured by that property was paid off. The petition thus again fails to state a claim. Respondent points out that petitioner has a pending federal suit against Chase in the Northern District of California that regards
48 Meda : No. 21

- CV

- 013 51

- HSG. I thus exercise my inherent power to stay petitioner’s writ proceeding in this court pending resolution of the federal
suit. [ 1 ] ( OTO, L.L.C. v. Kho (2019) 8 Cal.5th 111, 141.)” Mejia filed a notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION Mejia has chosen to represent himself on appeal, as is his right

. In doing so, however , he is still held to the same standard as an attorney. (See

1 Mejia filed a diversity action in federal court alleging breach of contract and negligence claims against C hase arising from the financing and sale of the property

. The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. ( See Mejia v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (9th Cir. Apr. 19, 2022 , No. 21

- 16550 ) 2022 WL 1154762 [nonpub. opn

. ].)4

Rappleyea v. Campbell (1994) 8 Cal.4th 975, 984

– 985; Nelson v. Gaunt (1981) 125 Cal.App.3d 623, 638

– 639; Taylor v. Bell (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 1002, 1009.) Self

- representation is not a ground for lenient treatment, and “as is the case with attorneys, pro. per. litigants must follow correct rules of procedure.” (

Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1247.) In sum, Mejia “ ‘is entitled

. . . [ to ] no greater consideration than other litigants and attorneys [citations], [ but ] is held to the same restrictive rules of procedure as an attorney [citation].’ ” ( County of Orange v. Smith (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1444.) In addition, as an appellant it is Mejia’ s “responsibility to affirmatively demonstrate error,” and he must show such error “by citation to the record and any supporting authority. In other words, review is limited to issues which have been adequately raised and briefed.” ( Lewis v. County of
Sa cramento (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 107, 116; see Eisenberg et al., Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Appeals and Writs (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 8:17.1 [“ When appellant asserts a point but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citations to authority, the cou rt may treat it as waived and pass it without consideration ”].) Specifically, “Each brief must: [¶]

. . . State each point under a separate heading or subheading summarizing the point, and support each point by argument and, if possible, by citation of a uthority

. ” (Cal Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)( B )

. ) And “[a]n appellant’s opening brief

must: [¶]

. . . (C) Provide a summary of the significant facts limited to
matters in the record. ” (Cal Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)( 2 ) (C). ) Mejia has filed a 9

- page opening brief , including a cover page, a table of contents, and a two

- page proof of service. The remaining five pages consist of

a very brief statement of the case, a three page “Table of Authorities,” setting5

forth in full certain sections of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as part of
the instructions for form BOE

- 502 , and the following : “STATEMENT OF FACTS “Chase Bank issued the Petitioner an Instrument of Title (Gov Code 27381)(Gov Code 27279) after having satisfied his mortgage loan. “San Francisco Assessor Recorder accepted and recorded the Title
Instrument. (IAA9) “As required by the State of California, Petitioner submitted form BOE

502, Pertinent u nder Instructions for Part 1 letter I, to the San Francisco
Assessor Recorder. (IAA30) “CONCLUSION “Petitioner submits to the Appellate Court the call for the San Francisco Assessor Recorder as recipient to a Writ of Mandate to accept for filing form BO E

- 502 which would complete the recordation of the transfer of beneficial interest from the Trustee(Chase) to the Trustor(Jose Mejia).” Under the principles set forth above, Mejia’s opening brief is inadequate. To begin with, it does not provide a summa ry of the significant facts. For example, it does not even mention the Bank of America loan on the property , the default on that loan , the 2019 trustee’s sale, or the 2020 deed of

reconveyance

— creating the misleading impression that Mejia is requesting
th at the recorder’s office perform a ministerial duty rather than attempting to recover title to the property after losing it in foreclosure

. Furthermore, a s noted, the trial court sustained the demurrer on three separate grounds: that the petition wa s unv erified and thus procedurally defective ; that a writ of
administrative mandamus cannot address filing and recording of title documents because no hearing was held, evidence taken, or facts determined under Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5; and that he fail ed to plead that he had6

an y ownership interest in the property at the time the Chase loan was paid off. Mejia’s brief does not even describe any of these grounds for the trial court’s decision, much less offer any argument or citation to authority showing w hy the trial court’s reliance on them was in error

. In short, Mejia
has failed to adequately brief the issues , and he has not carried h is burden to affirmatively demonstrate error.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.7 _________________________ Richman, Acting P. J.

We concur:

_________________________ Miller, J.

_________________________ Mayfield, J. *

Mejia v. San Francisco Assessor Recorder (A 164132 )
*Superior Court of Mendocino County, Judge Cindee Mayfield, sitting as assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.