Judge: Christopher K. Lui, Case: 19STCV09548, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV09548    Hearing Date: April 12, 2023    Dept: 76

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308(a)(1), the Court does not desire oral argument on the motion addressed herein.  As required by Rule 3.1308(a)(2), any party seeking oral argument must notify ALL OTHER PARTIES and the staff of Department 76 of their intent to appear and argue.  Notice to Department 76 may be sent by email to smcdept76@lacourt.org or telephonically at 213-830-0776.  If notice of intention to appear is not given and the parties do not appear, the Court will adopt the tentative ruling as the final ruling.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants advised Plaintiff and her mother to represent that the underlying loan was a commercial mortgage, even though it was a consumer credit transaction, which rendered the Truth in Lending Act inapplicable to the loan. Defendants allegedly knew Plaintiff did not qualify and could not afford the loan, which was for 11 months of interest only payments with a final balloon payment of $705,250.

Defendant UMRO Realty Corp., dba The Agency moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the Fourth Amended Complaint.

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant UMRO Realty Corp., dba The Agency’s for judgment on the pleadings as to the Fourth Amended Complaint is GRANTED as to the third and sixth causes of action without leave to amend.

ANALYSIS

Motion For Judgment On The Pleadings

Meet and Confer

            The Declaration of Jamileh Hawatmeh reflects that Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to meet and confer efforts. This satisfies Civ. Proc. Code, § 439(a)(3)(B).

Discussion

1.         Third Cause of Action (Violation of 12 C.F.R. § 1026.32(a)(4); Sixth Cause of Action (Violation of 12 C.F.R. § 1026.32(a)(5)—Failure To Obtain Written Confirmation of Pre-Loan Counseling).

            Defendant moves for judgment on the pleadings as to these causes of action on the ground that 12 C.F.R. § 1026.32 only applies to creditor/lenders, and moving defendant is not alleged to be a creditor/lender of Plaintiff.

On a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the same rules applicable on demurrer apply. (County of Orange v. Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 21, 32-33.)

Here, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition, thereby conceding the merit of the motion. As such, Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the 4AC is GRANTED as to the third and sixth causes of action without leave to amend.