Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 21STCV37165, Date: 2025-01-14 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV37165 Hearing Date: January 14, 2025 Dept: 14
#6
Case Background
On October 26, 2021, Plaintiff
Orna Shaposhnik (“Shaposhnik”), filed her Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) for
(1) Violation of Civil Code § 2923.5; (2) Violation of Civil Code
§ 2924(a)(1); (3) Violation of Civil Code § 2923.6; (4) Violation of
Civil Code § 2923.7; (5) Violation of Civil Code § 2923.9; (6)
Violation of Civil Code § 2923.10; (7) Unfair Competition; (8)
Cancellation of Instruments; (9) Wrongful Foreclosure; and (10) Quiet Title
against Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”); US Bank, N.A. as
Trustee for WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR11 (“US
Bank”); Quality Loan Service Corporation (“Quality Loan”); and DOES 1-10.
On December 17, 2021, Plaintiff
filed an “Amendment to Complaint” substituting Defendant Redwood Holdings, LLC
(“Redwood”) in lieu of DOE 1.
On February 10, 2022, this court
sustained the demurrer of Defendants SPS and US Bank to the second, fourth, and
fifth causes of action, with 30 days leave to amend. No amendment was made.
On March 29, 2022, Defendant
Quality Loan filed its Answer. On April 19, 2022, Defendants SPS and US Bank
filed their joint Answer.
On June 17, 2022, this case was
stayed pending bankruptcy proceedings. On October 19, 2022, the stay was lifted
pursuant to an order issued by Judge Martin Barash in Bankruptcy Court.
On February 23, 2023, Plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed Defendants SPS and US Bank, without prejudice.
On April 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed
her Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) for (1) Violation of Civil Code
§ 2923.5; (2) Violation of Civil Code § 2924(a)(1); (3) Violation of
Civil Code § 2923.6; (4) Violation of Civil Code § 2923.7; (5) Violation
of Civil Code § 2923.9; (6) Violation of Civil Code § 2923.10; (7)
Unfair Competition; (8) Cancellation of Instruments; (9) Wrongful Foreclosure;
and (10) Quiet Title against Defendants SPS, US Bank, Quality Loan, Redwood,
and DOES 2-10. Only the second, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth causes of
action are asserted against Defendant Quality Loan. Only the tenth cause of
action is asserted against Defendant Redwood.
Because of the prior proceedings,
set forth above, Defendants SPS and US Bank remain dismissed without prejudice.
The case proceeds only against Defendants Quality Loan and Redwood.
On June 15, 2023, Defendant
Redwood filed its Answer.
On August 10, 2023, this court
granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of Defendant Quality Loan as to the
second, seventh, and tenth causes of action. The court granted 10 days leave to
amend as to the seventh cause of action, but Plaintiff elected to appeal
instead. The appeal was dismissed on January 4, 2024.
On January 12, 2024, Defendant
Redwood filed its First Amended Answer.
On September 20, 2024, Defendant
Quality Loan Service Corporation filed its motion for summary judgment.
Instant Pleading
Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation moves for
summary judgment.
Decision
The motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant
Quality Loan Service Corporation is DENIED.
Discussion
Defendant Quality Loan set a hearing for this motion
for summary judgment for January 14, 2025, which is after the trial date.
A motion for summary judgment or adjudication must be heard
no later than 30 days before the date of trial unless a judge orders otherwise
for good cause. (Code Civ. Proc., section 437c(a)(3).) A party may not notice a
motion for summary judgment for hearing within 30 days of the trial date
without first obtaining a determination of good cause from the court. (Robinson
v. Woods (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1268.) Such notice is invalid unless
and until a court makes a determination that good cause exists to hear the
motion later than 30 days before trial. (Id.)
Here, Quality Loan’s motion for summary judgment was
set for hearing after the trial date. Quality Loan failed to move to
continue trial and failed to seek a determination of good cause from the Court
to set the summary judgment hearing on a date less than 30 days before trial. Therefore,
the notice of motion is invalid. Quality Loan’s motion for summary judgment is
DENIED.
Conclusion
The motion for summary judgment filed by Defendant
Quality Loan Service Corporation is DENIED.