Selzer v. HSBC Bank USA CA1/3, A136528

Plaintiff I. Lionel Selzer (pro per) stopped mortgage payments in 2008, sought a loan modification, and later sued multiple defendants (HSBC and OneWest) alleging wrongful foreclosure and various tort and statutory claims in a third amended complaint filed April 26, 2012.
The trial court had earlier issued a preliminary injunction in July 2011 preventing sale or eviction while Selzer paid $1,500/month; that injunction was dissolved in August 2011 for failure to pay reasonable rent.
Selzer sought leave to amend to add MERS as a defendant; the trial court granted amendment in part but denied adding the new party.
HSBC and OneWest demurred to the third amended complaint; they argued, among other things, Selzer lacked standing to set aside the foreclosure because he failed to tender the loan balance and the property had been sold to HSBC in 2010.
The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment of dismissal; Selzer appealed but did not challenge the demurrer order itself, instead claiming errors as to (1) dissolution of the preliminary injunction and (2) denial of leave to add MERS.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred in dissolving the preliminary injunction	Selzer contends the dissolution was erroneous	Respondents relied on Selzer’s failure to pay required rent and the court’s discretion to dissolve	Appeal waived/untimely and record inadequate; dissolution order not reviewable here; appeal untimely as to that interlocutory order
Whether the court abused discretion by denying leave to add MERS as a defendant	Selzer argues MERS was a necessary party and should have been added	Respondents opposed; trial court denied adding MERS (record and reasons not in appellate record)	Argument rejected for lack of adequate record and for failure to explain prejudice or abuse of discretion

Guthrey v. State of California, 63 Cal.App.4th 1108 (1998) (appellant must cite record portions supporting contentions)
Keyes v. Bowen, 189 Cal.App.4th 647 (2010) (same duty to provide record after demurrer sustained without leave)
People v. Garza, 35 Cal.4th 866 (2005) (judgment presumed correct; appellant must demonstrate prejudicial error)
Maria P. v. Riles, 43 Cal.3d 1281 (1987) (appellant bears burden to provide adequate record)
Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Com., 214 Cal.App.3d 1043 (1989) (inadequate record defaults review in favor of trial court)
Nwosu v. Uba, 122 Cal.App.4th 1229 (2004) (in pro per litigants receive same procedural requirements as represented parties)
Bourhis v. Lord, 56 Cal.4th 320 (2013) (time to appeal is jurisdictional)