1

Filed 4/26/23 Lim v. CitiMortgage CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

KEK HOEI LIM,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CITIMORTGAGE, Inc., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

 A165161

 (San Francisco County

 Super. Ct. No. CGC-21-591266)

Kek Hoei Lim (Plaintiff) appeals from the trial court’s judgment in 

favor of defendants CitiMortgage, Inc. (Citi) and Select Portfolio Servicing, 

Inc. (SPS) (collectively, Defendants). We affirm. 

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed the underlying quiet title action in April 2021.1 

Defendants’ demurrers were both sustained and Plaintiff was given leave to 

amend “to allege one or more non-time barred legally viable causes of action.” 

Plaintiff timely filed a first amended complaint. Defendants again filed 

demurrers, with the hearing on both set for October 7, 2021. On September 

1 Plaintiff proceeded in propria persona in the trial court, as he does on 

appeal. A third defendant is not a party to this appeal. 
2

23, 2021, Plaintiff filed a request for a 30-day extension of the hearing on 

SPS’s demurrer, submitting a declaration stating that he was suffering from 

Covid complications rendering him unable to address the demurrer. The trial 

court did not issue an order on this request, but the hearing proceeded on 

October 7 and the court sustained the demurrers, noting no opposition had 

been filed to either. The court granted Plaintiff leave to amend within 30 

days of notice of entry of the orders. Notice was served on October 19 (Citi) 

and 22 (SPS). 

On November 17, 2021, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to file 

his second amended complaint, averring that he continued to suffer from 

Covid complications, had an extreme reaction to the Covid vaccine, and was 

currently in Mexico receiving treatment. The request did not specify how 

much time Plaintiff sought. The trial court did not issue an order on this 

request. 

On January 4, 2022, Citi filed an ex parte application for dismissal on 

the ground that Plaintiff failed to timely file a second amended complaint. 

Plaintiff filed an opposition that included a request for an extension of time to 

file a second amended complaint, averring he was still suffering from Covid 

complications, had an extreme reaction to the Covid vaccine, was currently in 

Mexico seeking treatment, lost his mother to Covid while out of the country, 

and was handling his mother’s funeral arrangements and affairs. Plaintiff 

did not specify how much time he sought. On January 6, the trial court 

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice as to Citi and issued judgment 

for Citi. 

On February 10, 2022, SPS filed an ex parte application for dismissal. 

Plaintiff filed an opposition and requested 45 days to submit a second 

amended complaint, averring he was in Mexico handling issues related to the 
3

deaths of both his mother and his father. On February 14, the trial court 

dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice as to SPS and issued an 

amended judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. This appeal 

followed.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff cursorily contends the trial court was biased against him, but 

cites no conduct other than the adverse rulings. “It is ‘extraordinary’ for an 

appellate court to find judicial bias amounting to a due process violation. 

[Citation.] . . . Numerous and continuous rulings against a party are not 

grounds for a finding of bias.” (Schmidt v. Superior Court (2020) 

44 Cal.App.5th 570, 589.) Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any bias.

Plaintiff complains the trial court did not treat him more leniently 

because he was representing himself. “ ‘Under the law, a party may choose to 

act as his or her own attorney. [Citations.] “[S]uch a party is to be treated 

like any other party and is entitled to the same, but no greater consideration 

than other litigants and attorneys.” ’ ” (Grabowski v. Kaiser Foundation 

Health Plan, Inc. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 67, 75, fn. 2.) Plaintiff fails to 

demonstrate any error in this regard.

Plaintiff argues the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint solely 

on procedural grounds. “The court may dismiss the complaint as to [a] 

defendant when,” “after a demurrer to the complaint is sustained with leave 

to amend, the plaintiff fails to amend it within the time allowed by the court 

and either party moves for dismissal.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 581, subd. (f)(2).) 

Accordingly, procedural grounds authorized the dismissals and Plaintiff 

demonstrates no error. 

Plaintiff does not argue the trial court erred in effectively denying his 

requests for additional time, and has therefore forfeited any such argument. 
4

(Tellez v. Rich Voss Trucking, Inc. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1066.) Even 

if the argument were not forfeited, we would reject it because Plaintiff fails to 

demonstrate prejudice from any error. “[I]f . . . we can conclude that even 

assuming the court erred in denying a continuance the appellant was 

ultimately not prejudiced by the error, then any error was harmless.” 

(Rebney v. Wells Fargo Bank (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1117, 1141, disapproved 

of on another ground by Hernandez v. Restoration Hardware, Inc. (2018) 

4 Cal.5th 260, 269, 274, fn. 4; see also Freeman v. Sullivant (2011) 

192 Cal.App.4th 523, 528 [“the burden to demonstrate prejudice is on the 

appellant”].) Even assuming the court erred in denying the requests for 

additional time, Plaintiff made no showing—either below or on appeal—that

if the requested continuances had been granted, he could have raised viable 

arguments in opposition to SPS’s demurrer to the first amended complaint or 

could have alleged viable claims as to either of the Defendants in a second 

amended complaint.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.
5

SIMONS, Acting P. J.

We concur. 

BURNS, J.

LANGHORNE, J.*

(A165161)

* Judge of the Napa County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief 

Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.