Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22PSCV00447, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22PSCV00447 Hearing Date: October 17, 2022 Dept: O
1. Counsel for
Plaintiff Patricia Camarena’s (i.e., CDLG, PC) Motion to be Relieved as
Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon the filing of the proof of service showing
service of
the signed order upon the Clients at the Client’s last
known address.
2. Counsel for Plaintiff Jose L. Camarena’s (i.e., CDLG, PC) Motion to be Relieved as
Counsel is GRANTED, effective upon the filing of the proof of service showing
service of
the signed order upon the Clients at the Client’s last
known address.
Background
Plaintiffs Jose L. Camarena and Patricia Camarena (“Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:
Plaintiffs are the owners of the
property located at 1230 W Partner Street in West Covina (“subject property”). On
January 26, 2007, Plaintiffs obtained a mortgage loan on the subject property,
which was memorialized by a recorded deed of trust (“DOT”). On July 30, 2009,
an Assignment of DOT was recorded. On September 7, 2011, a second Assignment of
DOT was recorded, wherein the DOT was assigned to US Bank National Association,
as Trustee, Successor in Interest to Bank of America, National Association, as
Trustee (Successor By Merger To Lasalle Bank National Association) as Trustee
for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2007-8XS (“SMLT”). Plaintiffs fell
behind on payments.
On July 15, 2021, a Notice of Default
and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust was recorded. On December 7, 2021, a
Notice of Trustee’s Sale was recorded; the sale date was for January 13, 2022
but continued to April 7, 2022. Plaintiffs were not notified that the sale date
had change to April 7, 2022. On April 2, 2022, the loan servicer, Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”), sent a letter declining Plaintiffs’ loan
modification application. On April 3, 2022, Plaintiffs submitted a complete
loan modification application to SPS and requested a single point of contact.
On April 6, 2022, Plaintiffs filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.
The subject property was sold on April
7, 2022. Plaintiffs never received a denial letter or any letters advising them
that additional documents were needed from them. Plaintiffs’ bankruptcy was
dismissed on April 25, 2022.
On May 11, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against SMLT, SPS and Does 1-10 for:
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 Civ. Code § 2923.7
5.
Violation of Civ. Code § 2924.9
6.
Violation of Civ. Code § 2924.10
7.
Wrongful Foreclosure
8.
Interpleader Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 386, Civ.
Code §§ 2924j and 2924k
9.
Unfair Business Practices, Violation of Bus. &
Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.
10.
Cancellation of Written Instruments, Civ. Code § 3412
On May 23, 2022, Plaintiffs dismissed SPS, without prejudice. On May 23, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an “Amendment to Complaint,” wherein Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC was named in lieu of Doe 1.
A Case Management Conference is set for October 17, 2022.
1. Motion to Be Relieved Re: Patricia
CDLG, PC (“Firm”) seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Patricia Camarena (“Client”).
The court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted provided that there is no prejudice to the client and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398.)
California Rule of Court (“CRC”) Rule 3.1362 requires (1) a notice of motion and motion directed to the client (made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-051)); (2) a declaration stating in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under section 284(1) (made on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-052)); (3) service of the notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case; and (4) a proposed order relieving counsel (prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel—Civil form (MC-053)). The court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.
Attorney Tony Cara (“Cara”) states in his declaration that the “[a]ttorney client relationship has been compromised” and that “a withdrawal of representation is necessary under California Rules of Professional Conduct §§ 3-700(C)(d) and 3-700(C)(f).[1]” The notice of motion further states that the Client “has been uncooperative regarding the continuation of [her] case” and that “[t]his has made it extremely difficult for the attorney to carry out representation effectively.”
Cara states that he has served the Client by mail at the Client’s last known address with copies of the motion papers served with his declaration, and that he has confirmed, within the past 30 days, that the address is current, via mail, return receipt requested.
The court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 enumerated above have been sufficiently met.
Accordingly, the motion is granted, effective upon the filing of the proof of service reflecting service of the signed order upon the Client at the Client’s last known address.
2. Motion to be Relieved Re: Jose
Firm also seeks to be relieved as counsel of record for Plaintiff Jose L. Camarena (“Client”).
See synopsis of Motion #1.
The court determines that the requirements of Rules of Court Rule 3.1362 enumerated above have been sufficiently met.
Accordingly, the motion is granted, effective upon the filing of the proof of service reflecting service of the signed order upon the Client at the Client’s last known address.