Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV00752, Date: 2023-07-11 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 23STCV00752    Hearing Date: January 4, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Motion for Summary Judgment

Moving Party: Defendants Southside Neighborhood Stabilization 2021-7 LP and Southside Community Development & Housing Corporation

Resp. Party:    None

The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Southside Defendants and against Plaintiff.

The Court schedules an Order to Show Cause for February 2, 2024 as to why the Complaint should not be dismissed as to the remaining defendants. The Southside Defendants are to file their proposed judgment so that it can be ruled upon by or before February 2, 2024.

BACKGROUND:

I.          Preliminary Note on Background Issues

This case arises from transactions involving a single piece of real property: a single-family residence located at 2096 Ridge Point Drive, Los Angeles, California 90049. The claims and issues underlying this case appear to have been litigated multiple times by the same parties across multiple cases.

For the sake of clarity, the Court uses the term “Subject Property” to refer to the real property located at 2096 Ridge Point Drive, Los Angeles, California 90049.

Finally, the Court notes that there is some confusion across the filings about whether the name of one of the parties is “Leon Fingergut” or “Leon Fingerhut”. The Court uses “Leon Fingerhut”, as that appears to be the party’s name in instances when he submitted filings in propria persona.

II.       Background for Case No. 23STCV00752

On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff Leon Fingerhut filed his Complaint against Defendants Southside Neighborhood Stabilization 2021-7 LP; Southside Community Development & Housing Corporation; U.S. Bank, National Association; Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC; and Attorney Lender Services, Inc. The causes of action listed in the Complaint arise from transactions involving the Subject Property.

On February 28, 2023, the Court related cases Nos. 23STCV00752 and 21STCV32101. The Court also found that Case Nos. 21STCV32101 and 22SMUD00173 were not related after a prior judicial officer working on these cases accepted a peremptory challenge in Case No. 22SMUD00173.

On June 5, 2023, Defendants Southside Neighborhood Stabilization 2021-7 LP and Southside Community Development & Housing Corporation (“Southside Defendants”) filed their Answer to the Complaint.

On June 20, 2023, Defendants U.S. Bank, National Association, Rushmore Loan Management Services LLC, and Attorney Lender Services, Inc. filed their Answer to the Complaint.

On June 21, 2023, Defendant Attorney Lender Services, Inc. filed its Declaration of Nonmonetary Status.

On July 17, 2023, Plaintiff amended his Complaint to substitute Doe 1 with Beltway Capital, LLC.

On October 2, 2023, Southside Defendants filed their Motion for Summary Judgment. In support of their Motion, Southside Defendants concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Louis Amaya; (2) Separate Statement; (3) Request for Judicial Notice; and (4) Proof of Service.

No opposition or other response has been filed to the Motion.

ANALYSIS:

III.     Request for Judicial Notice

Southside Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of the following items:

(1)       The Deed of Trust recorded on April 30, 2004 as Instrument No. 04 1071848 in the Official Records of the Recorder’s Office for Los Angeles County;

(2)       The Notice of Default recorded on November 13, 2018 as Instrument No. 20181141693 in the Official Records of the Recorder’s Office for Los Angeles County;

(3)       The Substitution of Trustee recorded on August 7, 2020 as Instrument No. 20200915392 in the Official Records of the Recorder’s Office for Los Angeles County;

(4)       The Notice of Trustee’s Sale recorded on March 31, 2021 as Instrument No. 20210501557 in the Official Records of the Recorder’s Office for Los Angeles County;

(5)       The Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded on July 23, 2021 as Instrument No. 20211135019 in the Official Records of the Recorder’s Office for Los Angeles County;

(6)       The Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale recorded on October 4, 2021 as Instrument No. 20211502271 in the Official Records of the Recorder’s Office for Los Angeles County; and

Judicial notice is GRANTED to all six of these items.

IV.      Legal Standard      

“A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding. The motion may be made at any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action or proceeding of each party against whom the motion is directed or at any earlier time after the general appearance that the court, with or without notice and upon good cause shown, may direct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (1)(a).)

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That is because of the general principle that a party who seeks a court’s action in his favor bears the burden of persuasion thereon. 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.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850, citation omitted.)

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” (Aguilar, supra, at p. 850; Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1474, [applying the summary judgment standards in Aguilar to motions for summary adjudication].)

“On a summary judgment motion, the court must therefore consider what inferences favoring the opposing party a factfinder could reasonably draw from the evidence. While viewing the evidence in this manner, the court must bear in mind that its primary function is to identify issues rather than to determine issues. Only when the inferences are indisputable may the court decide the issues as a matter of law. If the evidence is in conflict, the factual issues must be resolved by trial.” (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 839, citation omitted.)

“The trial court may not weigh the evidence in the manner of a fact finder to determine whose version is more likely true. Nor may the trial court grant summary judgment based on the court's evaluation of credibility.” (Binder, supra, at p. 840, citations omitted; see also Weiss v. People ex rel. Dep’t of Transp. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 840, 864 [“Courts deciding motions for summary judgment or summary adjudication may not weigh the evidence but must instead view it in the light most favorable to the opposing party and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of that party”].)

“On a motion for summary adjudication, the trial court has no discretion to exercise. If a triable issue of material fact exists as to the challenged causes of action, the motion must be denied. If there is no triable issue of fact, the motion must be granted.” (Fisherman's Wharf Bay Cruise Corp. v. Super. Ct. (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 309, 320, citation omitted.)

V.         Discussion

Southside Defendants move for summary judgment on the Complaint. (Motion, p. 28:4–7.)

Southside Defendants argue: (1) that each cause of action lacks merit because Plaintiff was not an eligible bidder and therefore lacks standing; (2) that each cause of action lacks merit based on the conclusive presumption of compliance with all statutory procedures created by the recitals in the Trustee’s Deed; (3) that each cause of action lacks merit because Plaintiff cannot allege any procedural irregularity resulting in prejudice to him; (4) that each cause of action lacks merit because Civil Code section 2924m does not confer a private right of action on the Plaintiff; (5) that each cause of action lacks merit because Plaintiff failed to tender; (6) that the first cause of action for quiet title lacks merit because Plaintiff has no title or any right to title; (7) that the second cause of action for cancellation of instrument lacks merit because Plaintiff has not and cannot establish that the Trustee’s Deed is invalid; (8) that the third cause of action for wrongful foreclosure lacks merit because Plaintiff does not allege or prove any of the requirement elements; (9) that the fourth cause of action for slander of title lacks merit because Southside Defendants neither conducted the sale nor recorded the Trustee’s Deed and, in any event, the record of the Trustee’s Deed is privileged; (10) that the fifth cause of action for declaratory and injunctive relief lacks merit because there is no actual controversy or irreparable injury, and in any case these are merely remedies; and (11) that the remaining causes of action lack merit. (Motion, pp. 13:24–25, 17:18–20, 19:2–3, 20:3–4, 20:20, 21:21–22, 22:12–13, 23:4–5, 23:23–25, 24:14–16, 25:15, 26:20, 27:17.)

Neither Plaintiff nor any of the other defendants have opposed or otherwise responded to the Motion. Thus, it appears that they are not contesting Southside Defendants’ arguments.

Upon considering the evidence submitted, the Court determines that Southside Defendants have met their initial burden on summary judgment to show that there are no material triable issues of fact.  Plaintiff – who has not opposed this Motion for Summary Judgment – has not met his subsequent burden. Therefore, summary judgment is appropriate here.

VI.      Conclusion

The Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Southside Defendants and against Plaintiff.

The Court schedules an Order to Show Cause for February 2, 2024 as to why the Complaint should not be dismissed as to the remaining defendants. The Southside Defendants are to file their proposed judgment so that it can be ruled upon by or before February 2, 2024.