Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 30-2008-00107531, William M. Monroe, Judge.
Kareem Salessi, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Anglin, Flewelling, Rasmussen, Campbell & Trytten, Robin C. Campbell, and Fred Hickman for Defendants and Respondents Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, and Golden West Savings Association Service Co.
Brian P. Stewart for Defendant and Respondent Fidelity National Agency Sales and Posting.
IKOLA, J.
In an attempt to prevent the foreclosure of his residence, plaintiff Kareem Salessi sued defendants Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, Golden West Savings Association Service Co., and Fidelity National Agency Sales and Posting. The court eventually entered judgments of dismissal following orders sustaining the defendants’ respective demurrers to the complaint.
In his appellate briefs, Salessi raises a single germane legal issue: whether the trial court erred when it struck Salessi’s two motions to disqualify Judge William M. Monroe. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 170.1, 170.4, subd. (b), 170.6.) But “[t]he determination of the question of the disqualification of a judge is not an appealable order and may be reviewed only by a writ of mandate.... The petition for the writ shall be filed and served within 10 days after service of written notice of entry of the court’s order determining the question of disqualification.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 170.3, subd. (d); see also People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 444.) With regard to one of his disqualification motions, Salessi in fact filed a petition for writ of mandate with this court (which was denied) and a petition for review with the California Supreme Court (which was denied). We have no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal of the trial court’s rulings on Salessi’s disqualification motions brought under Code of Civil Procedure section 170.1 et seq.
Salessi’s briefs also catalogue various facts and accusations pertaining to defendants’ general business practices and roles in the financial/mortgage crisis. But Salessi does not effectively link such information to the issues in this case or otherwise identify any reasons the court should not have sustained the demurrers to Salessi’s complaint.
To the extent Salessi’s appeal can be construed as a “nonstatutory constitutional challenge[] to the judgment, ” we conclude following our independent review of the record that there is no evidence of any judicial bias in this case. (Roth v. Parker (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 542, 548-549; see also People v. Brown (1993) 6 Cal.4th 322, 332-337.)
Salessi does not identify any other alleged errors. The judgment is affirmed. Defendants shall recover costs incurred on appeal. We deny Salessi’s requests for judicial notice and his motion for sanctions against defendants.
WE CONCUR: RYLAARSDAM, ACTING P. J., O’LEARY, J.