Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV20009, Date: 2023-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20009    Hearing Date: April 10, 2023    Dept: 55

REA v. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC                                22STCV20009 

Hearing Date:  4/10/23,  Dept. 55

#4:   MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SUMMARY ADJUDICATION.

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

MP:  Defendant SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC.

RP:  

Summary

On 6/20/22, Plaintiff JUAN REA filed a Complaint alleging that, on 3/27/14, Defendant recorded a Notice of Default on Plaintiff’s home, but Plaintiff had been advised that his loan was charged off, Defendant failed to provide period statements from 2006 to 2019, and Defendant committed various statutory violations, such as failing to advise the homeowner in writing within 30 days that the Deed of Trust was assigned to a third party.

The causes of action are:

1. VIOLATION OF CIV. CODE § 2923.5;

2. VIOLATION OF CIV. CODE § 2924(a)(1);

3. VIOLATION OF CIV. CODE § 2923.6(c);

4. VIOLATION OF THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT, TITLE 12 C.F.R. § 1026.41, ENFORCEABLE THROUGH TRUTH IN LENDING ACT, TITLE 15 U.S.C. § 1640, PERIODIC LOAN STATEMENT REQUIREMENT;

5. VIOLATION OF THE ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICE ACT, CIV.CODE § 1788.30;

6. VIOLATION OF FIN.CODE §4978(a) AND CONST. ART. XV, §1, USURY RATE;

7. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES, VIOLATION OF BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200, ET SEQ.;

8. CANCELLATION OF WRITTEN INSTRUMENTS, CIV.CODE § 3412.

MP Positions

Defendants move for summary judgment against Plaintiff, on grounds including the following:

·         Plaintiff has admitted, via deemed admissions, that he has no facts to support any of the eight claims.

·         Plaintiff admitted he has suffered no damages.

·         Plaintiff’s statutory claims relate to a first position lien that Defendant Specialize Loan Servicing, LLC does not service and has no interest in whatsoever.

·         Defendant Specialized serviced a second loan that was charged off.

Tentative Ruling

The unopposed motion is granted.

The Court determines that moving Defendant’s proof referenced in its separate statement suffices to negate the entire Complaint, and that there are no triable issues of material fact, as to each issue raised, including whether Defendant Specialize Loan Servicing, LLC does not service, and has no interest in, a first position lien sued upon.

“[I]f all the papers submitted by the parties show there is no triable issue of material fact and the ‘moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c)), the court must grant the motion for summary judgment.”  Troyk v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1305, 1320.  Accord  Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409.