Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case 19STCV38851 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 19STCV38851, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV38851 Hearing Date: March 2, 2023 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: March 2, 2023 TRIAL DATE: April 4, 2023

CASE: Ana Liza Filio v. Statebridge Co., LLC et al.

CASE NO.: 19STCV38851

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Statebridge Co., LLC and Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, d/b/a Christiana Trust as Trustee for PNPMS Trust I

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No opposition filed as of 2/27/23

CASE HISTORY:

10/23/19: Complaint filed.
03/25/20: First Amended Complaint filed.
08/12/20: Second Amended Complaint filed.
11/09/20: Third Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is an action for fraud and breach of contract stemming from an allegedly wrongful foreclosure on a parcel of real property owned by Plaintiff.

Defendants Statebridge Co., LLC and Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, d/b/a Christiana Trust as Trustee for PNPMS Trust I, move for summary adjudication on the second cause of action for promissory estoppel, the fourth cause of action for intentional misrepresentation, and the fifth cause of action for negligent misrepresentation.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION:

Legal Standard

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party can show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and, if not, to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.” (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67, citing FPI Development, Inc. v. Nakashima (1991) 231 Cal. App. 3d 367, 381-82.)

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense. (Code Civ Proc. § 437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.) The lack of opposition by a plaintiff is not grounds to grant a motion for summary judgment if a defendant cannot meet their initial burden of proof. (See Thatcher v. Lucy Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 1081, 1087.)

Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)

Defendants’ Separate Statement

Defendants have filed a Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Fact in support of this motion, as required by California Rule of Court 3.1350(d). Rule 3.1350(d)(1) requires that the separate statement identify each issue on which summary adjudication is sought and then, with respect to each issue, set out each supporting material fact that is claimed to be without dispute. (Cal. Rules of Court Rule 3.1350(d)(1).) Here, however, Defendants’ separate statement sets out all material facts at the top of the document, and then, for each issue, incorporates select material facts by reference, rather than restating the facts in full. This format is not strictly compliant with the Rules of Court. However, as the Separate Statement does identify for each issue the specific material facts which are relevant, the Court finds that the Separate Statement is substantially compliant with the Rules of Court. The Court will therefore address this motion on its merits.

Second Cause of Action: Promissory Estoppel

Defendants move for summary adjudication on the second cause of action for promissory estoppel on the grounds that this cause of action is without merit.

To prevail on a claim for promissory estoppel, a party must establish (1) a promise clear and unambiguous in its terms; (2) reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; (3) that reliance was both reasonable and foreseeable; and (4) that the party claiming estoppel was injured by that reliance. (Jones v. Wachovia Bank (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 935, 945.

Defendants contend that this cause of action is without merit because Defendants made no promise to Plaintiff, and therefore Plaintiff also cannot establish that she relied on any promise made by Defendants to her detriment. The Third Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants, collectively, promised Plaintiff on May 22, 2018 that they had approval to accept the amount set out in the alleged Settlement Agreement in lieu of the remaining balance on Plaintiff’s mortgage, that if she paid Shellpoint $33,738.92 on or before April 15, 2021, her house would not be foreclosed on, that the Agreement setting out these terms would only be voided if a payment were missed or returned for insufficient funds, and that Shellpoint was the loan servicer on Plaintiff’s mortgage. (TAC ¶¶ 22; 69-72.)

Defendants offer evidence that Shellpoint Management Services was the loan servicer in May 2018, and servicing was not transferred to Defendant Statebridge until April 2019. (SSUMF Nos. 5-6.) Defendants further state that neither moving Defendant had any interest in the Loan or the Property, nor any involvement in the repayment agreement before March 29, 2019. (SSUMF No. 7.) Thus, Defendants argue, neither of these Defendants could have made any promises to Plaintiff in May 2018 through the Repayment Agreement alleged in the Third Amended Complaint. Defendants have offered evidence which shows that they could not have made any promises to Plaintiff on which she may have relied to her detriment and, therefore, have carried their burden to show that Plaintiff cannot prevail on this cause of action. The burden of proof shifts to Plaintiff to offer evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact as to this cause of action. As Plaintiff has not responded to this motion, Plaintiff has failed to do so. Defendants are therefore entitled to summary adjudication on this cause of action.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED as to the second cause of action for promissory estoppel.

Fourth Cause of Action: Intentional Misrepresentation

Defendants move for summary adjudication on the third cause of action for intentional misrepresentation on the ground that this cause of action is without merit.

“The elements of fraud that will lead to a tort action are: (a) misrepresentation; (b) knowledge of falsity; (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage. (Engalla v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 951, 974.) Every element of the cause of action for fraud must be alleged in the proper manner and the facts constituting the fraud must be alleged with sufficient specificity to allow defendant[s] to understand fully the nature of the charge made. (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73.) “This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Ibid.) “[G]eneral and conclusory allegations do not suffice.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.)

Defendants contend that this cause of action is without merit because Plaintiff cannot establish any of the elements of this cause of action. The Court addresses Defendants’ contention that Plaintiff cannot establish any misrepresentations by Defendants because, if this element fails, the Court need not proceed further.

The Third Amended Complaint alleges two sets of representations which give rise to this cause of action: Shellpoint’s alleged representations concerning the Repayment Agreement (TAC ¶¶104-106), and a telephone conversation between Plaintiff and a representative of Statebridge in June 2019, when the representative allegedly stated that if Plaintiff would show that a settlement had been reached and if Plaintiff made additional payments of $659.41, Defendants would not continue with the foreclosure. (TAC ¶¶ 107-109.) Defendants argue, for the reasons stated above in connection with the second cause of action, that Shellpoint’s May 2018 statements cannot give rise to a claim of misrepresentation by these Defendants. Further, as to the June 2019 telephone conversation, Defendants contend that Statebridge only advised Plaintiff that the 2018 agreement had been cancelled due to nonpayment, offering Plaintiff’s deposition testimony and Defendant Statebridge’s own servicing records in support of this contention. (SSUMF No. 12; Declaration of Stephanie Jeffries ISO Mot. Exh. H; Declaration of Kristina M. Pelletier ISO Mot. Exh. A. [Deposition of Ana Liza Filio] p. 122:10-22.) Defendants contend that this is the full account of that conversation with Plaintiff, and that Defendants never stated that, if Plaintiff showed a settlement had been reached, or made additional payments, that the foreclosure would not proceed. Indeed, the servicing records provided make no mention of any discussion along the lines alleged in the Third Amended Complaint. Based on this evidence, and the reasons stated above in connection with the second cause of action, the Court finds that Defendants have offered evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff cannot establish any false representations by these Defendants. The burden of proof shifts, therefore, to Plaintiff to offer evidence demonstrating the existence of a triable issue of fact as to this cause of action. However, as Plaintiff has not responded to this motion, Plaintiff has failed to make that showing. Defendants are therefore entitled to summary adjudication on this cause of action.

As Defendants have demonstrated that Plaintiff cannot establish any false representations which would entitle Plaintiff to relief against these Defendants, and that they are therefore entitled to summary adjudication, the Court declines to address the remaining elements of the intentional misrepresentation cause of action.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED as to the fourth cause of action for intentional misrepresentation.

Fifth Cause of Action: Negligent Misrepresentation

Defendants move for summary adjudication on the fifth cause of action for negligent misrepresentation.

Defendants contend that the fifth cause of action survives or fails for the same reasons as the fourth cause of action. As the Third Amended Complaint contends that the same representations alleged as to the fourth cause of action give rise to the fifth cause of action, the Court concurs with Defendants. (TAC ¶¶ 141-145.) Therefore, as Defendants are entitled to summary adjudication on the fourth cause of action because Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate any false representations which would give rise to liability against these Defendants, Defendants are likewise entitled to summary adjudication on this cause of action.

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED as to the fifth cause of action for negligent misrepresentation.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Adjudication is GRANTED.

Moving Parties to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2023 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.