Full Opinion

Filed 10/21/26 Torres v. Flexpoint Funding Corp. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE JOEL M. TORRES, B344142 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 21NWCV00483) FLEXPOINT FUNDING CORP. et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Ann H. Park, Judge. Affirmed. Joel M. Torres, self-represented litigant; and James M. Imperiale for Plaintiff and Appellant. [Retained.] Troutman Pepper Locke and Justin D. Balser for Defendants and Respondents. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Joel M. Torres appeals from an order denying his motion to set aside judgments pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure1 section 473, subdivision (d) and for new trial. Because he raises no argument on appeal that challenges that order, we affirm. II. BACKGROUND A. Underlying Action and Judgment On July 27, 2021, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for the Holders of the Specialty Underwriting and Residential Finance Trust Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificate Series (U.S. Bank), Nationstar Mortgage LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper (Nationstar), Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss, LLP (Barrett), Jeannette Villegas, Hector Villegas, and Does 1 through 25. He alleged claims for wrongful foreclosure, cancellation of an instrument, quiet title, violation of Civil Code sections 2924f, 2923.5, 2923.55, and 2924.17, subdivision (a) of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights (Civ. Code, § 2923.4 et seq.), violation 1 Further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise indicated. Plaintiff’s opening brief asserts that he also appeals from the order denying his motion for new trial. An order denying a new trial is not appealable, but is reviewable on appeal from the judgment. (Audish v. Macias (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 740, 746, fn. 2.) As we will explain, plaintiff has failed to timely appeal from the judgment. 2 of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and preliminary injunctive relief. On January 20, 2023, defendants Nationstar and U.S. Bank filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Nationstar and U.S. Bank asserted that plaintiff failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against them. On May 23, 2023, plaintiff, acting as a self-represented litigant, opposed the motion. On May 25, 2023, the trial court granted Nationstar and U.S. Bank’s motion. On August 18, 2023, the court entered judgment in favor of Nationstar and U.S. Bank and against plaintiff. Counsel for defendants served notice of entry of judgment that same day. On December 29, 2023, Barrett moved for judgment on the pleadings, which plaintiff opposed. On February 9, 2024, the trial court issued its order granting Barrett’s motion. On March 22, 2024, the court entered judgment in favor of Barrett and against plaintiff. Barrett served notice of entry of judgment on April 4, 2024. B. Motions to Set Aside Void Judgments and For New Trial On February 26, 2024, plaintiff filed notice of his intent (1) to move under section 473, subdivision (d) to set aside the August 18, 2023, judgment in favor of Nationstar and U.S. Bank and the February 9, 2024, order granting Barrett’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as void judgments, and (2) to move for a new trial.2 2 Plaintiff’s notice of intent to move to set aside the judgment concerned only the February 9, 2024, order granting Barrett’s 3 On January 8, 2025, the trial court denied the motions.3 On the section 473 motion, the court concluded that plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the judgment and order included any clerical errors and that he failed to argue that the judgments were void. On the new trial motion, the court concluded that plaintiff did not demonstrate that he had newly discovered evidence that could not reasonably have been discovered earlier. On January 24, 2025, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the January 8, 2025, order. III. DISCUSSION In his opening brief, plaintiff argues the trial court erred when it granted the motions for judgment on the pleadings filed by Nationstar, U.S. Bank, and Barrett.4 But he raises no argument challenging the order denying his motions to set aside a void judgment under section 473 and for new trial, the only order on appeal. We therefore conclude that plaintiff has waived any challenge to the order on appeal. (Cahill v. San Diego Gas & motion. But the case summary included with the record indicates that both motions were subsequently filed on March 19, 2024. And, the trial court construed the section 473 motion as also seeking to vacate the August 18, 2023, judgment. The record on appeal does not include either plaintiff’s section 473 motion or his motion for new trial. 3 The record is not clear as to why the trial court delayed in ruling on the motions. The record also does not demonstrate that the order denying the motion, or notice of entry of that order, was served. 4 Barrett did not file a respondent’s brief. 4 Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 956 [“‘We are not bound to develop appellants’ argument for them. [Citation.] The absence of cogent legal argument or citation to authority allows this court to treat the contention as waived.’ [Citations.]”].) Plaintiff, in his reply brief, denies that he is challenging “only the January 8, 2025, order denying relief under … section 473 and the motion for new trial.” He asserts that because he designated a record that included the court’s earlier orders granting judgment on the pleadings, we should review the merits of those rulings. We disagree. “‘“‘[W]here several judgments and/or orders occurring close in time are separately appealable (e.g., judgment and order awarding attorney fees), each appealable judgment and order must be expressly specified—in either a single notice of appeal or multiple notices of appeal—in order to be reviewable on appeal.’”’ [Citations.] Indeed, ‘“[w]hen a party wishes to challenge both a final judgment and a postjudgment … order, the normal procedure is to file two separate appeals: one from the final judgment, and a second from the postjudgment order.”’ [Citation.] ‘“‘[I]f a judgment or order is appealable, an aggrieved party must file a timely appeal or forever lose the opportunity to obtain appellate review.’”’ [Citation.]” (Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Assn. v. McMullin (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 982, 1007–1008.) Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal on January 24, 2025, and stated that he was appealing only from the January 8, 2025, order. Because plaintiff failed to specify that he appealed from the August 18, 2023, or March 22, 2024, judgments, he cannot obtain appellate review of the judgments or the orders upon which they were based. 5 Even if plaintiff had indicated in his notice of appeal that he was appealing from the earlier judgments, his appeal would be untimely. The record reflects that notices of entry of judgment were served on August 18, 2023, and April 4, 2024, for the respective judgments. Plaintiff thus had 60 days from the date of service of the notices to file a notice of appeal from those judgments. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(B).) The denial of the motion for new trial extended the filing deadline to appeal the judgments by at most 180 days after entry of judgment. (Id., rule 8.108(b)(1)(C).) The January 24, 2025, notice of appeal would thus be untimely for purposes of challenging the judgments directly. 6 IV. DISPOSITION The order denying the section 473 motion to set aside the judgments and the motion for new trial is affirmed. Defendants Nationstar and U.S. Bank are awarded costs on appeal. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS KIM (D.), J. We concur: BAKER, Acting P. J. MOOR, J. 7