Court Opinion

ID: 9388782
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-21 17:02:59.816328+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:22.632366
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/21/23 Boghossian v. Nationstar Mortgage CA2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

 RAZMIK BOGHOSSIAN,                                               B319390

           Plaintiff and Appellant,                               Los Angeles County
                                                                  Super. Ct. No. 19GDCV01163
           v.

 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE
 LLC,

           Defendant and Respondent.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Joel L. Lofton, Judge. Affirmed.
      Rodriguez Law Group and Patricia Rodriguez for Plaintiff
and Appellant.
      Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders, Justin D. Balser and
Katalina Baumann for Defendant and Respondent.
                     ____________________
       Razmik Boghossian appeals from a judgment of dismissal
entered after the trial court granted Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s
motion for summary judgment. Because Boghossian failed to
provide a proper brief or record, we affirm.
       Boghossian filed suit against Nationstar alleging violation
of Civil Code section 2924.11 and the Unfair Competition Law,
Bus. & Prof. Code sections 17200 et seq. Boghossian alleged
Nationstar violated the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights by engaging
in “dual-tracking,” meaning the loan servicer pursued foreclosure
while Boghossian was seeking a loan modification. Boghossian
alleged he submitted a complete loan modification application on
July 12, 2019. Thus, he alleged, Nationstar’s recording of a
notice of trustee’s sale on the same day violated Civil Code
section 2924.11. He further alleged these actions constituted
unlawful and unfair practices under the Unfair Competition Law.
       Nationstar moved for summary judgment. It argued the
evidence showed Nationstar recorded the notice of trustee’s sale
at 8:00 a.m. on July 12, 2019 and that Boghossian submitted his
loan modification application materials no earlier than 2:45 p.m.
that day. Nationstar also argued the legislature repealed the
version of Civil Code section 2924.11 on which Boghossian relied
effective January 1, 2019, and the proper Civil Code section was
2923.6. With respect to the Unfair Competition Law claim,
Nationstar argued Boghossian had provided no evidence of
damages to money or property as the trustee’s sale had not taken
place and Boghossian therefore had no standing to bring an
Unfair Competition Law claim. Nationstar also argued because
the Homeowner’s Bill of Rights claim failed, there was no
evidence of an unlawful or unfair business practice.

                                2
       The trial court granted the motion in a thorough minute
order. The trial court held Nationstar was correct that the
legislature had repealed the version of section 2924.11 on which
Boghossian relied, and the relevant Civil Code provision on dual-
tracking was section 2923.6. The trial court found Boghossian
had submitted no evidence that Nationstar did not comply with
that provision. The trial court similarly found Boghossian based
his Unfair Competition Law claim on his claims under the
Homeowner’s Bill of Rights, and it thus fell with those claims.
       Boghossian appeals.
       We presume a judgment is correct. (Jameson v. Desta
(2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608-609.) Thus, an appellant bears the
burden of affirmatively demonstrating error. (Id at 609.) Part of
this obligation is the duty to provide an adequate record to allow
the court to review the claims of error. (Ibid.) Where the record
is insufficient for this purpose, we affirm the judgment. (Ibid.)
       An appellant’s opening brief must contain a summary of all
relevant facts. (In re Marriage of Davenport (2011) 194
Cal.App.4th 1507, 1531; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C).)
The brief must then provide cogent legal argument with relevant
cites to legal authority and the record. (City of Santa Maria v.
Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 286-287 (City of Santa Maria)
[cogent argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the
record necessary to demonstrate error]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.204(a)(1)(B) & (C).) Failure to provide supported argument
forfeits the issue. (City of Santa Maria, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th
at p. 287.)
       Boghossian’s presentation violated these rules. He appeals
from a grant of summary judgment. Our review is independent
and requires us to undertake the same evaluation as the trial

                                3
court: summary judgment is proper if all of the papers show
there is no triable issue as to any material fact. (Aguilar v.
Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) In making this
determination, we must consider all of the evidence and all of the
inferences reasonably drawn from it. (Ibid.) Boghossian failed to
identify the correct standard of review, equating it with, “in
essence,” an abuse of discretion standard. He failed to include
the evidence submitted by the parties in connection with their
summary judgment briefing. We are unable to complete the
review required in the summary judgment context of all of the
evidence and therefore assume the trial court decided correctly.
(Henderson Bros. Stores, Inc. v. Smiley (1981) 120 Cal.App.3d
903, 920, fn. 10)
       Boghossian’s opening brief is also deficient. His statement
of the facts fails to include significant facts, largely ignoring
Nationstar’s evidence. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C).)
Although he asserts the trial court erred in dismissing his claims,
he does not identify how the trial court erred. He fails to argue
there was a material triable issue of fact and does not identify
any such issue. (Id. at rule 8.204(a)(1)(B).) We do not devise
arguments on a party’s behalf. (Allen v. City of Sacramento
(2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 41, 52.) Boghossian includes no cites to
the record in his argument. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule
8.204(a)(1)(C).) He cites case law, but not in support of a cogent
argument why the trial court erred in granting summary
judgment. He continues to cite and argue about a version of Civil
Code section 2924.11, which the trial court informed him was
repealed.

                                 4
      Boghossian’s reply brief repeats the arguments in his
opening brief, word for word, without a response to Nationstar’s
arguments.
      These failures forfeit an attack on this summary judgment.
(Jones v. Superior Court (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 92, 99.)
                          DISPOSITION
      We affirm the judgment and award costs to Nationstar.

                                         WILEY, J.

We concur:

             GRIMES, Acting P. J.

             VIRAMONTES, J.

                               5