Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 20STCV17032, Date: 2023-02-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV17032    Hearing Date: February 17, 2023    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: February 17, 2023

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Moving Party: Defendants PHH Mortgage Corp., Western Progressive, LLC, U.S. Bank National Association, and Newrez LLC

Responding Party: Plaintiffs Selah Chavet, Esmaily Fuentes, Jim Oberg and Beth Oberg

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IS DENIED.

DEFENDANTS TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On May 20, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants, asserting causes of action for (1) violation of Civ. Code § 2923.6; (2) negligence; (3) wrongful foreclosure; and (4) UCL violations. Plaintiffs allege Defendants sold real property despite a conditional approval of Plaintiffs’ short sale application.

ANALYSIS

A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings when the “complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.”  (CCP § §§ 438(b)(1) and (c)(1)(B)(ii).)  The grounds for motion provided for in this section shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice.  (CCP § 438(d).)  Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999.)   

            Defendants move for judgment on the pleadings against Plaintiffs Esmaily Fuentes, Jim Oberg, and Beth Oberg on the ground that they lack standing to maintain this action.

Defendants assert that Fuentes and the Obergs lack standing because they are not parties to the loan agreement between Defendants and Plaintiff Chavet. Plaintiffs allege that Fuentes is Chavet’s real estate agent and that the Obergs have an ownership interest in the subject property. Plaintiffs do not allege that Fuentes or the Obergs were parties to the loan contract. “Generally, the person possessing the right sued upon by reason of the substantive law is the real party in interest. It follows that someone who is not a party to [a] contract has no standing to enforce the contract or to recover extra-contract damages for wrongful withholding of benefits to the contracting party.” (Gantman v. United Pacific Ins. Co. (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1560, 1566.)

In opposition, Plaintiffs point out that Defendants have failed to provide any California authority that has facts analogous to the instant action. Gantman involved individual members of a homeowner’s association suing the homeowner’s insurance company; Dino v. Pelayo (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 347 involved a party’s standing to disqualify counsel. Plaintiffs assert Defendants have failed to show Plaintiffs lack standing. The Court agrees. Defendants have not provided applicable, binding authority stating that Plaintiffs, who allegedly suffered harm resulting from Defendants’ actions, cannot maintain this action.

Defendants’ motion is DENIED.