Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 21NWCV00483, Date: 2025-05-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00483    Hearing Date: May 6, 2025    Dept: F

TORRES v. FLEXPOINT FUNDING CORPORATION, ET AL.

CASE NO.: 2INWCV00483

HEARING: May 6, 2025 @ 8:30 a.m.

#7

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Joel M. Torres’s ex parte application to advance hearing date for motion to continue hearing is GRANTED.  The motion to continue hearing is advanced to today’s date and GRANTED in part.  Proceedings are STAYED pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s appeal.  A status hearing is scheduled for November 5, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-F. 

Clerk to give notice.

Background

This is an action for quiet title. On June 27, 2021, Plaintiff Joel M. Torres (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Flexpoint Funding Corporation, U.S. Bank National Association As Trustee for the Holders of the Specialty Underwriting and Residential Finance Trust Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificate Series, 2006-Bci, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Barrett Daffin Frappier, Trader & Weiss, Jeannette Villegas, Hector Villegas, and Does 1 to 25. The action concerns the real property located at 9038 Mel Dar Avenue, Downey, California 90240 (“Subject Property”). The Complaint alleges the sale was premature, or otherwise improper based on a “void Substitution of Trustee,” and resulted in Defendants Jeannette Villegas and Hector Villegas purchasing the Subject Property at a foreclosure sale. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Wrongful Foreclosure; (2) Cancellation of Instrument; (3) Quiet Title; (4) Violation of Homeowner Bill of Rights Cal. Civ. Code § 2924(f); (5) violation of Homeowner Bill of Rights Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5; (6) Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200; and (7) Preliminary Injunction.

On August 18, 2023, the Court granted Defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”) and U.S. Bank National as Trustee for the Holders of the Specialty Underwriting and Residential Finance Trust Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates Series, 2006-BCI’s (“U.S. Bank National”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and entered judgment in favor of Nationstar and U.S. Bank National.

On February 9, 2024, the Court granted Defendant’s Barrett, Daffin Frappier, Trader & Weiss’ (“BDFTW”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and entered judgment in favor of BDFTW on March 22, 2024.

On January 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the Second Appellate District, challenging the two judgments entered in this case.

On March 11, 2025, the Appellate Court dismissed the appeal based on Plaintiff’s default. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Relief from Default on March 13, 2025. (Torres Decl., ¶ 3.) On April 1, 2025, the Appellate Court vacated the dismissal and reinstated the appeal. (Torres Decl., ¶ 4.) The Appellate Court ordered Plaintiff to file a civil case information statement and a fee waiver. (Torres Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff thereafter filed the required documents. (Torres Decl., ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff now moves to continue trial, or in the alternative, stay all proceedings pending appeal.

Legal Standard

“Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332(c).)

The Court, in making its determination to continue the trial should consider the following factors: (1) The proximity of the trial date; (2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to any party (3) The length of the continuance requested; (4) The unavailability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) The prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) If the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) The court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) Whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) Whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) Whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) Any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.” (CRC Rule 3.1332(d).

Discussion

Plaintiff moves to continue trial, or in the alternative, to stay all proceedings pending appeal. Plaintiff asserts good cause exists in order to avoid conflicting rulings and irreparable harm to Plaintiff.

The Court finds good cause exists to stay proceedings pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s appeal on the Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings. Holding trial may risk conflicting rulings, especially as to the issue of whether there has been a fraudulent corporate assignment of the deed of trust, which ultimately led to Defendants Jeannette Villegas and Hector Villegas purchasing the Subject Property at a foreclosure sale.

Accordingly, proceedings are STAYED pending the outcome of Plaintiff’s appeal.  The Court schedules a status hearing on November 5, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. in Dept. SE-F.