Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 25STCV02697, Date: 2025-05-12 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 25STCV02697    Hearing Date: May 12, 2025    Dept: 52

Defendant DJK Enterprise LLC’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike

Demurrer

Defendant DJK Enterprise LLC (DJK) demurs to all causes of action alleged against it by plaintiff Charline Nunez. 

Summary of Complaint

            Plaintiff’s complaint alleges eight causes of action.  Only the following causes of action are against DJK: (4) Financial Code § 4970 et seq., (5) unfair business practices, (6) civil conspiracy, (7) quiet title, and (8) cancellation of instruments.

Plaintiff’s complaint arises from transactions involving her real property at 210 West 89th Street in Los Angeles.  (Comp., ¶ 14.)  She alleges she defaulted on her original loan of $330,000.  (¶¶ 17-20.)  Plaintiff alleges several defendants (not including DJK) “engaged in a scheme to steal the equity in plaintiff’s home and to eventually steal her property.”  (¶ 22.)  She alleges those “defendants packaged a fraudulent loan for the plaintiff… .”  (¶ 23.)

Plaintiff further alleges, “In furtherance of the scheme, defendants and each of them have obtained form the plaintiff funds in excess of $150,000.00.  In furtherance of the scheme to steal the plaintiff’s property, defendant DJK, acting through defendant Asset Default, on or about 5/31/2024 recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell” and “on or about 9/16/2024 recorded a Notice of Sale … .”  (¶¶ 24-26.)  She also alleges, “The fraudulent loan which the defendants arranged for the plaintiff was funded by DJK as lender.”  (¶ 71.) 

Discussion

Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts for any cause of action against DJK.  Her complaint does not allege what DJK itself did that violated any law or supports any of her causes of action.  The complaint refers to DJK’s loan as “fraudulent” but does not allege how DJK participated in any fraud.  The purported fraud is that the defendants who arranged for the loan obtained a loan on worse terms than her existing loan (Comp., ¶ 66.a) and falsified information on the loan to indicate “the subject property was a rental” that generated income rather than her residence (¶¶ 66.b-c).  The only factual allegations about DJK are that it funded the loan.  (¶ 71.)

Plaintiff’s claims against DJK also fail for another reason.  “A borrower may not … quiet title against a secured lender without first paying the outstanding debt on which the mortgage or deed of trust is based.”  (Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 86; accord Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 808, 819 [cancellation of instrument requires tender of debt].) 

Plaintiff alleges DJK funded the $447,000 loan.  She does not allege she has tendered to DJK the amount she borrowed from it.  To the contrary, she alleges she cannot afford to pay her debt.  (E.g., Comp., ¶ 93.b [“defendants for their own benefit arranged a more onerous loan for the plaintiff, so that they could siphon off the equity in plaintiff’s home and burden the plaintiff with a loan they knew she would not be able to pay and would ultimately face foreclosure from the defendants”].)  Plaintiff does not allege any facts establishing that the loan is void or otherwise excusing her from the tender requirement.

Motion to Strike

            Defendant DJK Enterprise LLC moves to strike several portions of plaintiff’s complaint.  The court will sustain DJK’s demurrer to all causes of action against it.  The motion to strike is therefore moot.

Disposition

            Defendant DJK Enterprise LLC’s demurrer to plaintiff Charline Nunez’s fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action is sustained with leave to amend.  Plaintiff shall file any first amended complaint within 20 days.

Defendant DJK Enterprise LLC’s motion to strike portions of the complaint is denied as moot.