Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 22PSCV01289, Date: 2023-09-25 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, counsel are advised to check this website periodically to determine whether any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling. Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Department G at (909) 802-1104 prior to 8:30 a.m. the morning of the hearing.

Case Number: 22PSCV01289    Hearing Date: September 25, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC’s Application for Default Judgment is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is an action for cancellation of instruments and declaratory judgment. In September 2019, Wayne Situ and Lilian Li (Borrowers) obtained a loan from Flagstar Bank, FSB (Flagstar) that was secured by a deed of trust on a property owned by Borrowers in El Monte. Subsequently, Flagstar assigned its beneficial interests in the 2019 deed of trust to Plaintiff Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC (Lakeview). But Lakeview then discovered the property was encumbered by three additional deeds of trust, including an August 1989 deed of trust held by Jack K. Rasmussen and Marguerite S. Rasmussen, a November 1989 deed of trust held by Richard Q. Rousselle, and a 2017 deed of trust held by Xinchen, LLC (Xinchen). While Lakeview alleges these deeds were paid off as a part of a refinance, Lakeview has been unable to obtain a payoff-statement of reconveyance from these parties.

On October 14, 2022, Lakeview filed a complaint against Rousselle, Xinchen, and the unknown heirs, assigns, and devisees of the Rasmussens (Rasmussen successors), as well as Does 1-20, alleging the following causes of action: (1) cancellation of instrument and (2) declaratory judgment. On November 1, Lakeview’s process server personally served the Rasmussen successors in Renton, Washington.

On November 17, 2022, Lakeview dismissed Xinchen from the present action. On December 6, default was entered against the Rasmussen successors. On February 21, 2023, Lakeview dismissed Rousselle from the present action and replaced Doe 1 with the unknown heirs, assigns, and devisees of Rousselle (Rousselle successors). On April 14, Lakeview’s process server personally served the Rousselle successors in Eagle, Idaho. On May 18, default was entered against the Rousselle successors.

On August 25, 2023, Lakeview submitted the present application for default judgment. An OSC Re: Default Judgment is set for September 25.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a default judgment after a party has filed to timely respond or appear.  A party seeking judgment on the default by the court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (7) exhibits as necessary; and (8) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties.  (Cal. Rules of Court 3.1800.)

ANALYSIS

Lakeview seeks default judgment against Defendants in the form of cancellation of instruments and declaratory judgment. Because the court finds Lakeview has submitted sufficient evidence, the court GRANTS their application for default judgment.

While Code of Civil Procedure section 764.010 requires a prove-up hearing for determinations involving a plaintiff’s title, Lakeview argues a prove-up hearing is not required in the present case where Lakeview only seeks to cancel instruments and does not seek to quiet title. The court agrees as “an action to cancel an instrument is distinct from an action to quiet title.” (Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pyle (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 513, 523.)

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Lakeview’s application for default judgment is GRANTED.