Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 23AHCV01554, Date: 2023-12-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23AHCV01554    Hearing Date: December 21, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

 

MI PING TENG,

                   Plaintiff(s),

          vs.

 

CHASE BANK,

 

                   Defendant(s),

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

      CASE NO.: 23AHCV01554

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: DEFENDANT JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’S DEMURRER

 

Dept. 3

8:30 a.m.

December 21, 2023

 

I.       INTRODUCTION

          On July 7, 2023, plaintiff Mi Ping Teng (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Defendant”) (erroneously sued as Chase Bank). Plaintiff alleges that her property at 1836 S. Chapel Avenue in Alhambra, California (“the Property”) was subject to an unlawful foreclosure. Plaintiff alleges Defendant never mailed her a monthly mortgage statement and that representatives informed her that Defendant did not own her loan. Plaintiff additionally alleges that Defendant committed fraud by charging her $795,075.32 in debt.

          On September 13, 2023, Defendant filed this demurrer arguing that Plaintiff’s action was barred by the statute of limitations, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. Defendant further argues that Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

No opposition brief is on file.

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face.  (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.) “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed. [Citation.]” (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].) Allegations are to be liberally construed. (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)

Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.) The burden is on the complainant to show the Court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Ibid.)

III.     DISCUSSION

Actions to set aside a foreclosure sale are governed by the substance or gravamen of the action. (Hatch v. Collins (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1104, 1110.) Claims sounding in fraud and mistake must be brought within 3 years. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 338(a), (d).) Actions to set aside a foreclosure sale accrue when foreclosure proceedings are initiated (Engstrom v. Kallins (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 773, 783), unless accrual is postponed by the discovery rule. (Hatch v. Collins, supra, at p. 1110.)

Here, Defendant’s request for judicial notice includes a trustee’s deed upon sale that was recorded on July 29, 2019. (RJN, Ex. 20.) However, Plaintiff did not file this action until July 7, 2023, which is more than 3 years after the Property was foreclosed on. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim for wrongful foreclosure is time-barred.  

As Plaintiff did not oppose the demurrer, Plaintiff has necessarily failed to show how the Complaint can be successfully amended. Therefore, the demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

IV.     CONCLUSION

Defendant’s demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated this 21st day of December 2023

 

 

 

 

William A. Crowfoot

Judge of the Superior Court

 

 

 

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.