Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2022-00003016-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2023-10-13 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 12, 2023

10/13/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Real Property Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00003016-CU-OR-CTL FLORES VS NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.

A defendant moving for summary judgment has met his or her burden of showing a cause of action has no merit if the defendant can show one or more elements of the plaintiff's cause of action cannot be established. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(o)(2).) The defendant bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) If the defendant carries the burden of production, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to make his or her own prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of fact.

(Ibid.) 'There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof. [Fn. omitted.]' (Ibid.) Summary adjudication may be granted on the same grounds, so long as it 'completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.' (CCP § 437c(f)(1).) For the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that Defendant has shown there is no triable issue of fact as to either of Plaintiff's causes of action. Therefore, the Court does not address Defendant's argument regarding failure to include an indispensable party.

Civil Code Section 3273 et seq.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated Civil Code § 3273.10 and § 3273.11, and he is therefore entitled to injunctive relief to prevent the sale of the subject property. Civil Code Section 3273.10 requires that a mortgage server provide written notice of a borrower's request for forbearance if: (1) made the request between August 31, 2020 and December 1, 2021; (2) was current on the loan payment as of February 1, 2020; and (3) experienced a financial hardship that prevented the borrower from making timely payments on the mortgage obligation due, directly or indirectly, to the COVID-19 emergency.' (Civ.

Code § 3273.10(a)(1), (b); § 3273.1(b).) Here, it is undisputed that the loan payment was not current as of February 1, 2020. Therefore, regardless of what Plaintiff was told by Defendant, he did not qualify for a Covid-19 related forbearance, and Section 3273.10 did not apply to him. Consequently, Defendant could not have violated Section 3273.10. Similarly, Section 3273.11 requires mortgage servicers to comply with certain federal guidelines 'following a COVID-19 related forbearance.' Because Plaintiff did not receive any such forbearance, Defendant could not have violated the statute. Furthermore, because Plaintiff cannot show a violation of Section 3273, he is not entitled to injunctive relief. Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Unfair Competition Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2947637  7 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  FLORES VS NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC [IMAGED]  37-2022-00003016-CU-OR-CTL This claim is derivative of Plaintiff's Section 3273 claim. Because Defendant has shown it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that claim, Plaintiff cannot establish a violation of Business and Professions Code § 17200. Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

All requests for judicial notice are granted.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2947637  7