Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 22STCV18246, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV18246 Hearing Date: February 16, 2023 Dept: 53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department
53
|
vs. |
Case
No.: |
22STCV18246 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
February
16, 2023 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Tentative]
Order RE: defendant’s demurrer to complaint |
||
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Western Progressive,
LLC
RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed
Demurrer to Complaint
The court considered the moving and reply papers filed in connection
with this demurrer. No opposition papers
were filed.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Francisco Montiel (“Plaintiff”) filed this action on June 3,
2022, against defendants Western Progressive, LLC, Planet Home Lending, LLC,
and all persons claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or
interest in the property adverse to Plaintiff’s title, or any cloud on
Plaintiff’s title thereto located at 2726 West Pendleton Avenue, Santa Ana,
California, 92704, APN.2022-00205-CA.
Plaintiff alleges three causes of action for (1) injunction, (2) unfair
business practices, and (3) declaratory relief.
Defendant Western Progressive, LLC (“Defendant”) now moves the court
for an order sustaining its demurrer to each cause of action alleged in
Plaintiff’s Complaint.
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
The court grants Defendant’s request for judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (c); Poseidon
Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th
1106, 1117-1118.)
DISCUSSION
The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s first cause of
action for injunction enjoining defendants from foreclosing on Plaintiff’s property
until he has been considered for a loan modification, approved for a short sale
or exhausted alternative means of retention because the judicially noticed
documents establish that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc.,
§ 430.10, subd. (e).)
Plaintiff alleges that (1) Defendant has recorded a Notice of Trustee
Sale with a sale date of June 27, 2022, and (2) sale of the property will occur
unless the court issues an injunction.
(Compl., ¶¶ 12, 14, 18.) Thus, Plaintiff requests “an injunction
precluding Defendants from foreclosing on the property until [Plaintiff] has
been seriously considered for a loan modification.” (Compl., ¶ 18; Compl., Prayer, ¶ 1
[prayer for order requiring Defendant to show cause why it should not be
enjoined from foreclosing on the property on June 27, 2022].) Defendant
recorded the (1) Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust on
February 10, 2022, and (2) Notice of Trustee’s Sale on May 17, 2022, scheduling
the sale of the property for June 27, 2022.
(RJN Exs. 4-5; Compl., ¶ 12.) On
July 1, 2022, Defendant recorded a Notice of Rescission of Notice of Default,
giving notice that Defendant rescinded, cancelled, and withdrew the Notice of
Default and Election to Sell recorded on February 10, 2022. (RJN Ex. 6.)
The court finds that the judicially noticed documents establish that
Plaintiff’s cause of action for injunctive relief, requesting the court enjoin
Defendant from foreclosing on the property, is moot since the legal effect of
the Notice of Default and Election to Sell cancelled the notice of default and
subsequent sale of the property. The
court therefore finds that Plaintiff has not alleged facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action for injunctive relief.
The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s second cause of
action for unfair business practice because it does not state facts sufficient
to constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff does not allege, with the
requisite particularity, facts establishing that Defendant’s refusal to
consider Plaintiff for a loan modification constitutes an unlawful, unfair, or
fraudulent business act or practice within the meaning of Business and
Professions Code section 17200. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e); Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200.)
The court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s third cause of
action for declaratory relief because it does not state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action since Plaintiff has not alleged the existence of
an actual, present controversy. (Code
Civ. Proc., §§ 430.10, subd. (e), 1060.)
Plaintiff requests, in connection with this cause of action, a judicial
declaration (1) based on the controversy between Plaintiff and Defendant in
connection with the foreclosure sale, and (2) that the foreclosure sale of June
27, 2022 is vacated until Plaintiff is considered for a loan modification. (Compl., ¶¶ 29, 31-32.) However, as set forth above, the controversy
regarding the foreclosure sale scheduled for June 27, 2022 is moot due to
Defendant’s filing of the Notice of Default and Election to Sell.
The burden is on the plaintiff “to articulate how it could amend its
pleading to render it sufficient.”¿ (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners
Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 268, 290.)¿ To satisfy that
burden, a plaintiff “must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and
how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.”¿ (Goodman
v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.)
The court finds that Plaintiff has not met their burden to show in what
manner the Complaint can be amended to change the legal effect of the pleading.
The court therefore sustains Defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend.
The
court sustains defendant Western Progressive, LLC’s demurrer to plaintiff
Francisco Montiel’s complaint without leave to amend.
The
court orders defendant Western Progressive, LLC to lodge and serve a proposed
order of dismissal from the Complaint filed by plaintiff Francisco Montiel
within 10 days of the date of this order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 581, subdivision (f)(1).
The
court orders the hearing on defendant Western Progressive, LLC’s motion to
compel deposition set for August 29, 2023 is vacated.
The
court orders defendant Western Progressive, LLC to give notice of this ruling.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Robert
B. Broadbelt III
Judge
of the Superior Court