Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV13708, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV13708    Hearing Date: April 10, 2024    Dept: 14

Folke, et al. v. Deutsche Bank et al.

Case Background

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are wrongfully attempting to foreclose on their home.

            On June 14, 2023 Plaintiffs filed their verified Complaint for (1) Declaratory Relief, (2) Breach of the Implied Covenant, (3) Fraud, (4) Abuse of Process, (5) Quiet Title, (6) Negligence, (7) Unfair Competition, and (8) Breach of Contract against Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (“Deutsche Bank”), Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC (“Carrington”), and DOES 1-50.

On July 24, 2023, Defendants Deutsche Bank and Carrington filed their joint Answer.

            Jury Trial is currently set for February 18, 2025.

Instant Motion

Defendants Deutsche Bank and Carrington now move this court for judgment on the pleadings, on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action against it.

Decision

            Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) is GRANTED.

            The motion is GRANTED, with 20 days leave to amend.

Discussion

            The complaint in this case is not entirely in comprehensible form. Plaintiffs attempt to plead causes of action for “Equitable/Declaratory Relief with a TRO/Preliminary Injunction” and “Abuse of Process/Intentional Misrepresentation” and “Negligence/Negligent Misrepresentation” and “Breach of Contract/Promissory Estoppel/Promissory Fraud.” These are either not causes of action, or they seek to improperly combine separate legal theories.

The application for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction (which are remedies, not causes of action) was rejected by Judge Curtis A. Kin, sitting in Department 82 of this courthouse. Abuse of Process and Intentional Misrepresentation are completely separate torts with separate elements. While Negligence and Negligent Misrepresentation are more closely related, they remain separate claims. Breach of Contract, Promissory Estoppel, and Promissory Fraud are all completely different theories which cannot be rolled into one. Plaintiffs need to plead each of these theories separately, and identify clearly which facts support which theories.

Aside from the issues of organization, the argument that Plaintiff Nicholas D. Folke lacks standing appears well-taken. Nothing in the complaint appears to identify him as the real party in interest to any of these claims. He is does not seem to be party to any contract, in a position to “rely” on any fraud, or owed any duty by the lenders.

            These reasons are sufficient to support the court’s ruling. The court understands that Defendants raise several other arguments and its silence should not be read as approval or disapproval. The court simply elects to stop here because it views a comprehensible complaint and identification of the proper parties as a pre-requisite to substantive analysis.

Conclusion

            Because the complaint is not clearly pled, and does not explain how Plaintiff Nicholas D. Folke has standing to raise the claims identified, the motion is GRANTED, with 20 days leave to amend.