Preview
OA
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Nov-24-2010 8:59 am
Case Number: CGC-10-505594
Filing Date: Nov-24-2010 8:54
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03042129
COMPLAINT
OULA VASILOGIORGIS VS. DONALD A. GLAZER, AS TRUSTEES OF THE GLAZER LIVIN
001003042129
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.SUM-100
(CITACON. DICIAL) elo coer
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
Donald A. Glazer and Alice A. Glazer, as Co-Trustees of the Glazer
Living Trust Dated December 30, 1987; PLM Lender Services, Inc., and
Does 1 to 1
YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
Foula Vasilogiorgis
NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
below.
You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. ‘Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask
the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
may be taken without further warning from the court.
There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
JAVISO! Lo han demandado. Sino responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informaci6n a
continuaci6n.
Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citacion y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta
corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta 0 una llamada telefénica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar
en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informaci6n en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte. ca.gov), en la
biblioteca de leyes de su condado 0 en la corte que le quede més cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacin, pida al secretario de la corte
que fe dé un formulario de exencién de pago de cuotas. Sino presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le
podré quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.
Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. ‘Sino conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de
remision a abogados. Sino puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un
programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services,
(www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en e! Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte,ca.gov) o poniéndose en contacto con Ja corte o el
colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre
cualquier recuperacién de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo 0 una concesi6n de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que
pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.
The name and address of the court is: e | 0 ’ 5 0 5 5 9 4
(El nombre y direccién de la corte es): Superior Court of California
County of San Francisco
400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102
The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:
(El nombre, ta direcci6n y el numero de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
Richard C. Sinclair, Esq., SBN 068238, P O Box 1628, Oakdale, CA 95361 — (209) 847-8788
oxTE, NOW 2 4 on SLERK OF THE COURT —ierk, by ae f Deni
(Fecha) (Secretario)
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) 7
(Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).
NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
1. [_] asan individual defendant.
2. [__] as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
'g, [1] on behalf of (specify):
i
2 under: L_] CCP 416.10 (corporation) CO CCP 416.60 (minor)
/ [] CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) [—] CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
( ccp 416.40 (association or partnership) [__] CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
_ other (specify):
4. i (date):
by personal delivery on (date): page-tott
rnaarrar cre SUMMONS cesonrmran cee
SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009][ ATTORNEY OF BARTY QUTHEUT ATTORNEY A areySaggenr numer ana acess) FOR COURT USE ONLY “1
Attorney at Law
PO Box 1628
Oakdale, CA 95361
TELEPHONE NO (309) 847-8788 Faxno. (209) 847-7077
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff
|SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF- SAN FRANCISCO
STREET ADDRESS:
wauincanpress: 400 McAllister Street
cry anoz cove: San Francisco, CA 94102
BRANCH NAME
CASE NAME:
Vasilogiorgis vs. Glazer, et al.
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation “CGC . 1 . 5 9
anes Oo tamoent [5 counter [_] Joinder - ft - 8 4
demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant W0GE
exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT:
Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2).
1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation
Auto (22) [_] Breach of contractwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
Uninsured motorist (46) L_] Rule 3.740 collections (09) L_] AntitrustyTrade regulation (03)
Other P/PDIWD (Personal Injury/Property Other collections (09) L__] Construction defect (10)
DamageWrongful Death) Tort LJ Insurance coverage (18) LJ] Mass tort (40)
Asbestos (04) Other contract (37) [_] Securities litigation (28)
Product liability (24) Real Property Environmental/Toxic tort (30)
Medical malpractice (45) Eminent domainvinverse Insurance coverage claims arising from the
Other PI/PD/WD (23) ___ condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case
Non-PU/PDWD (Other) Tort Wrongful eviction (33) types (41)
Business torvunfair business practice (07) LY] Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment
(_] ivi rights (08) Unlawful Detainer [_] enforcement of judgment (20)
Defamation (13) ‘Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
Fraud (16) L_] Residential (32) RICO (27)
Intellectual property (19) LI Drugs (38) Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
LJ Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition
[_] other non-P/PDIWD tort (35) L— Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21)
Employment Petition re: arbitration award (11) Other petition (not specified above) (43)
__] Wrongful termination (36) [L_] writ of mandate (02)
‘Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39)
2. This case is LY] isnot complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
ald Large number of separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses
b. Oo Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
c. Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. CO Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a._¥_| monetary b.L¥ ] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief ©. punitive
4, Number of causes of action (specify): Nine
5. Thiscase L_lis [¥lisnot aclass action suit.
6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-0, cz
Date: November 23, 2010 — :
RICHARD C. SINCLAIR, ESQ. —
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME) GNATURE.OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY)
NOTICE
Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result
in sanctions.
* File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.
© If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all
other parties to the action or proceeding.
© Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes ony.
1of 2
Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400-3.403, 3.740;
“uacia Counci of Calfoma CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal Standards of Judlcial Adrinitation, st. 310
‘CM-010 (Rev. July 1, 2007] wwnw.courtinfo.ca.gov1
INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET cm-o10
To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must
complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 4. This information will be used to compile
statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check
‘one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1,
check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action.
To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover
sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party,
its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court.
To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case” under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money
owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in
which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort
damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of
attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general
time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections
case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740.
To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the
case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by
completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the
complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the
plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that
the case is complex.
Auto Tort
Auto (22)-Personal Injury/Property
Damage/Wrongful Death
Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the
case involves an uninsured
motorist claim subject to
arbitration, check this item
instead of Auto)
Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/
Property Damage/Wrongful Death)
Tort
Asbestos (04)
Asbestos Property Damage
Asbestos Personal Injury/
Wrongful Death
Product Liability (not asbestos or
toxic/environmental) (24)
Medical Malpractice (45)
Medical Malpractice—
Physicians & Surgeons
Other Professional Health Care
Malpractice
Other PI/PD/WD (23)
Premises Liability (e.g. slip
and fall)
Intentional Bodily injury/PDAWD
(eg., assault, vandalism)
Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress
Negligent Infliction of
Emotional Distress
Other PI/PD/WD-
Non-PI/PDIWD (Other) Tort
Business Tort/Unfair Business
Practice (07)
Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination,
false arrest) (not civil
harassment) (08)
Defamation (e.g., slander, libel)
(13)
Fraud (16)
Intellectual Property (19)
Professional Negligence (25)
Legal Malpractice
Other Professional Malpractice
CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES
Contract
Breach of Contract/Warranty (06)
Breach of Rental/Lease
Contract (not unlawful detainer
or wrongful eviction)
Contract/Warranty Breach—Seller
Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence)
Negligent Breach of Contract/
Warranty
Other Breach of Contract/Warranty
Collections (e.g., money owed, open
book accounts) (09)
Collection Case—Seller Plaintiff
Other Promissory Note/Collections
Case
Insurance Coverage (not provisionally
complex) (18)
Auto Subrogation
Other Coverage
Other Contract (37)
Contractual Fraud
Other Contract Dispute
Real Property
Eminent Domair/Inverse
Condemnation (14)
Wrongful Eviction (33)
Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) (26)
Writ of Possession of Real Property
Mortgage Foreclosure
Quiet Title
Other Real Property (not eminent
domain, landlordfenant, or
foreclosure)
Unlawful Detainer
Commercial (31)
Residential (32)
Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal
drugs, check this item; otherwise,
report as Commercial or Residential)
Judicial Review
Asset Forfeiture (05)
Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11)
Writ of Mandate (02)
Writ-Administrative Mandamus
Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court
Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal.
Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403)
Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03)
Construction Defect (10)
Claims Involving Mass Tort (40)
Securities Litigation (28)
Environmental/Toxic Tort (30)
Insurance Coverage Claims
(arising from provisionally complex
case type listed above) (41)
Enforcement of Judgment
Enforcement of Judgment (20)
Abstract of Judgment (Out of
County)
Confession of Judgment (non-
domestic relations)
Sister State Judgment
Administrative Agency Award
(not unpaid taxes)
Petition/Certification of Entry of
Judgment on Unpaid Taxes
Other Enforcement of Judgment
a
Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
RICO (27)
Other Complaint (not specified
above) (42)
Declaratory Relief Only
injunctive Relief Only (non-
harassment)
Mechanics Lien
Other Commercial Complaint
Case (non-tort/non-complex)
Other Civil Complaint
(non-tortnon-complex)
Miscellaneous Civil Petition
Partnership and Corporate
Governance (21)
Other Petition (not specified
above) (43)
Civil Harassment
Workplace Violence
Elder/Dependent Adult
Abuse
Election Contest
Petition for Name Change
(not medical or legal) Case Matter Petition for Relief From Late
Other Non-PI/PD/WD Tort (35) Writ-Other Limited Court Case Claim
Employment Review Other Civil Petition
Wrongful Termination (36) Other Judicial Review (39)
Other Employment (15) Review of Health Officer Order
Notice of Appeal-Labor
Commissioner Appeals.
‘CN-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007)
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET
Page 2 of 2RICHARD C. SINCLAIR, SBN: 068238
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. Box 1628
Oakdale, CA 95361
TEL: (209) 847-8788
FAX: (209) 847-7077
CASH MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SET
Attorney for Plaintiff
APR 2 9 201 - 90 AM
SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 TO 10, 7) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT
(VIOLATION OF BUS & PC § 17500)
8) UCL (VIOLATION OF BUS. & P. C. §
17200)
9) WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE
Defendants.
‘BRPARIMENT 212
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
FOULA VASILOGIORGIS, ) CASENO: 0 GC= 14° 68 45 94
)
Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT FOR:
)
vs. ) 1) DECLARATORY RELIEF
) 2) INJUNCTION;
DONALD A. GLAZER AND ALICE A. ) 3) ACCOUNTING;
GLAZER, AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE ) 4) BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD
GLAZER LIVING TRUST DATED } 5) BRE OT TRACT
DECEMBER 30, 1987; PLM LENDER > FRAUD 3
)
)
)
)
)
)
PLAINTIFF, FOULA VASILOGIORGIS, herein allege as follows:
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
1. PLAINTIFF, FOULA VASILOGIORGIS, is an individual residing in San Francisco County,
California.
2, DEFENDANT, DONALD A. GLAZER AND ALICE A. GLAZER, AS CO-TRUSTEES OF
THE GLAZER LIVING TRUST DATED DECEMBER 30, 1987 (hereafter “Defendant
Glazer” or “‘Lender”) is a corporation doing business in San Francisco County, California.
Plaintiff's Complaint - 1. DEFENDANT, PLM LENDER SERVICES, INC. (hereafter “PLM” or “Trustee”) is a
corporation doing business in San Francisco County, California.
. The real property which is the subject of this Complaint is located at 579 Connecticut Street,
San Francisco, California 94107, with APN: 27-4100-023-01 (hereafter the “Property”).
. The Property is Plaintiff's home and primary residence; the Property is owner-occupied.
|. Defendant GLAZER has a Promissory Note secured by a Deed of Trust on the Property all
dated September 28, 2006. The Trustee on the Deed of Trust is PLM Lender Services, Inc., al
California Corporation.
The First Note amounted to $250,000.00, and the Second Note amounted to $484,000.00.
Both included acceleration clauses which were not affordable to Plaintiff.
. Defendant lender wrongfully and negligently placed Plaintiff into a loan they could not
afford; Plaintiff never should have been qualified for the loan. The terms of the loan were
severely inequitable, and include the following:
a. Atthe very minimum and accounting for interest, the monthly payment should have
been $2,286.85. The start rate of the loan, however, was only $2,187.50 per month, a
negative amortization charge of $99.35 per month, or a total of $5,961.00 during the
60 month term on the First Note.
b. At the very minimum, and accounting for interest, the monthly payment should have
been $3,932.50. Borrower may defer $2,400.00 per month and pay $1,532.50
beginning September 1, 2007 for up to one year.
c. The combined First and Second should have been a minimum of $6,219.35.
d. The combined First and Second provided for a 12 month start rate of $3,819.35
between September 1, 2007 to September 1, 2008, and then the excess $28,800 added
to the principal and the monthly interest payment to go to $247.45, increasing the
monthly payment on the First to $2,534.70 and the combined monthly payment to
Plaintiff’s Complaint - 2$6,475.00 per month, and a monthly income of $20,889.68 to qualify under
applicable standards.
e. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs simply could not afford to
make these payments.
f. The terms of the loan also allow Defendants to charge a prepayment penalty if the
Plaintiffs pay off the loan early.
g. Defendants failed to adequately apprise and explain to Plaintiff that these were some
of the true terms of each loan, and failed to adequately apprise Plaintiff of the effects
of both of the loans.
9. Defendant lender wrongfully and negligently placed Plaintiff into a loan they could not
afford; Plaintiff never should have been qualified for the loan.
10. Defendants abused the value of Plaintiff’s stated income and used it as a device to falsely
qualify them for a loan that they could not truly afford.
11. Defendants were offering the plans, their representatives acted as brokers, and they had a
duty to properly qualify Plaintiff for the loans. These loans set Plaintiff up to default from
the very beginning, and Defendant lender knew or should have known this, Defendant lender
is now attempting to benefit from their wrongful or negligent conduct by pursuing non-
judicial foreclosure, and the loans simply should never have been entered into.
12. Defendants failed to apprise Plaintiff of the Home Affordable Programs under President
Obama’s plan to assist Plaintiff in modifying their mortgage through FHABA (Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac).
13. Defendants also did not follow the payment schedule according to the terms in the deed of
trust and instead charged in excess of what was owed, and/or generally failed to exercise
proper discretion when enforcing the terms of the contract.
Plaintiff’s Complaint - 314.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Defendants also wrongfully disqualified Plaintiff for the HAMP program and failed to revie
Plaintiff's loan in good faith.
Defendants also violated the provisions of CC §§ 2923.6 and 2923 et seq., because although
they declared that they do have a comprehensive loan program, they do not, or did not
qualify Plaintiffs for the program in bad faith, or simply did not offer a program which would
satisfy Plaintiffs’ needs and therefore did not offer a satisfactory program.
Even if Defendants are exempt pursuant to CC § 2923.53, Defendants have not met the
requirement essential to having a comprehensive loan program because they do not have a
program which would apply to borrowers such as Plaintiff.
When the phone number for ‘sale information’ on the Notice of Trustee’s Sale is dialed,
Plaintiffs could not obtain other information regarding the sale or reinstatement information,
and the only information which was provided was the date that the property would be sold.
Plaintiffs have attempted in good faith to resolve this matter however these attempts have not
been successful.
. Plaintiff does not know the true names of defendant DOES 1 through 10, and therefore sues
them by those fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint when their true
names and capacities are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of
that information and belief alleges, that each of those defendants was in some manner
intentionally and/or negligently and proximately responsible for the events and happenings
alleged in this complaint and for plaintiff's injuries and damages. Plaintiff is informed and
believes, and on the basis of that information and belief alleges, that at all times mentioned in|
this complaint, defendants were the agents and employees of their codefendants, and in doing}
the things alleged in this complaint were acting within the course and scope of such agency
and employment. Plaintiff alleges that the DOE’s have, or claim to have, an interest in the
Property or loans herein describe, the exact nature of which is unknown to Plaintiff.
Plaintiff’s Complaint - 420. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-7 as if fully set forth herein.
21. A real and actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
DECLARATORY RELIEF
(AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS)
concerning their respective rights and duties. A controversy exists as to whether or not
Defendants: 1) placed Plaintiff into an inequitable loan as described above which Plaintiff
never should have qualified for or have been placed into; 2) failed to properly advise Plaintiff]
of the true terms of the loan; 3) abused the value of Plaintiff's income and used it as a device
to falsely qualify her for a loan that they could not truly afford; 4) these loans set Plaintiff up
to default and be unable to pay the loan from the very beginning, and Defendant lender knew
or should have known this, Defendant lender is not attempting to benefit from their wrongful
or negligent conduct by pursuing non-judicial foreclosure, and the loan simply should never
have been entered into; 5) failed to apprise Plaintiff of the Home Affordable Programs under
President Obama’s plan to assist Plaintiff in modifying their mortgage through FHABA
(Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac); 6) followed the payment schedule according to the terms in
the deed of trust and instead charged in excess of what was owed, and/or generally failed to
exercise proper discretion when enforcing the terms of the contract; 7) wrongfully
disqualified Plaintiff for the HAMP program and failed to review Plaintiff's loan in good
faith; 8) violated the provisions of CC §§ 2923.6 and 2923 et seq., because although they
declared that they do have a comprehensive loan program, they do not, or did not qualify
Plaintiff for the program in bad faith, or simply did not offer a program which would satisfy
Plaintiff's needs and therefore did not offer a satisfactory program; 9) have provided
information and access to their alleged ‘comprehensive loss mitigation assistance program’
in good faith; 10) have provided a means of obtaining information on the specific reasons
Plaintiff’s Complaint - 524
25
why Plaintiff supposedly could not qualify for HAMP and could not obtain any information
on appeals which could be made to qualify; 11) have provided information and access to sale
information’ as indicated on the Notice of Trustee’s Sale; and or 12) whether or not
Defendants violated other statutes or committed or omitted other wrongful acts, all as
described in the foregoing.
22. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the circumstances, in
order that Plaintiffs may ascertain their rights and duties under the promissory notes and
deeds of trust.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and for relief as set forth in the
Prayer for Relief.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
INJUNCTION
(AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS)
23. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-28 as if fully set forth herein.
24. Defendants threaten to, and unless restrained, will continue its pursuance of a non-judicial
foreclosure and will sell, or cause to be sold the Property to Plaintiff's great and irreparable
injury, for which pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief in that a sale of
the property will take place unless restrained and Plaintiff will lose her property, there being
no right to redemption from the sale.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and for relief as set forth in the
Prayer for Relief.
Plaintiff’s Complaint - 6THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
ACCOUNTING
(AS TO DEFENDANT GLAZER)
25. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-28 as if fully set forth herein.
26. A relationship is owed by Defendant Glazer as lender and beneficiary to Plaintiff as trustor.
27. A certain balance is due from Defendants to the Plaintiff that can only be ascertained by an
accounting. As of the date of this Complaint, the sum owed from Plaintiff to Defendants is
not certain and cannot be calculated with reasonable certainty without an accounting. Based
on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests an accounting.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and for relief as set forth in the
Prayer for Relief.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
(AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS)
28. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-28 as if fully set forth herein.
29. The breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires that neither party to a contract
take actions that deprive the other of benefits of the agreement. Defendants have breached
this covenant by knowingly or negligently placing Plaintiff into a loan that she could not
afford, as more fully discussed in the foregoing.
30. Defendants have otherwise breach the convenant of good faith and fair dealing as follows:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and for relief as set forth in the
Prayer for Relief.
Plaintiff’s Complaint - 724
25
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
(AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS)
31. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-28 as if fully set forth herein.
32. The parties entered into the first and second notes and deeds of trust as an agreement as
described in the foregoing.
33. Defendants breached this agreement by failing to abide by the schedule described in the loan.
34. Defendants further breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by offering
and qualifying Plaintiff for a loan that she should not have qualified for, and thereafter by
enforcing the terms of that loan which they should not have been provided to them, and by
other acts as described in the foregoing.
35. Defendants breached the agreement furthermore by dialing to exercise discretion properly
when enforcing the terms of the contract, and violated good faith and fair dealing in setting
charges as well.
36. Defendants also breached the agreement by failing to provide new financing or to restructure
the terms of the existing loan.
37. Any breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is also a breach of contract]
38. By each of the acts described in the foregoing, Defendants breached their contract with
Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and for relief as set forth in the
Prayer for Relief.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FRAUD
(AS TO DEFENDANT GLAZER)
Plaintiff’s Complaint - 839, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-28 as if fully set forth herein.
40. Defendants are liable for deceit (CC § 1710) for any suppression of fact by one who is bound
to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of
communication of that fact. Defendants are also liable for promises made without any
intention of performing them.
41. Defendant lender placed Defendants in a loan they could not afford without adequately
disclosing to them the true nature of the loan (i.e., terms including the negative amortization),
42. Defendant lender also knew or should have known that the Plaintiff was not able to execute
the agreement, and therefore executed the agreement without any intention of performing it.
43. Defendant lender gained an advantage over the Plaintiff by failing to adequately disclose the
true nature of the loan including the negative amortization, to Plaintiff's prejudice.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and for relief as set forth in the
Prayer for Relief.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT (VIOLATION OF BUS. & P. C. § 17500
(AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS)
44, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-28 as if fully set forth herein.
45. As described more fully in the foregoing, Defendants have made false or misleading
statements intended to induce Plaintiff to enter into the loan by failing to advise Plaintiff
properly as to the true nature of the loan and by other acts.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and for relief as set forth in the
Prayer for Relief.
Plaintiff’s Complaint - 946. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-10 as if fully set forth herein.
47. Based on the foregoing conduct by Defendants, Defendants have at least practiced unfair
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
UCL (VIOLATION OF BUS. & P. C. § 17200
(AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS)
conduct in relation to Plaintiff's loan by their business acts and/or practices, including but not
limited to: 1) placing Plaintiff into an inequitable loan as described above which Plaintiff
never should have qualified for or have been placed into; 2) failing to properly advise
Plaintiffs of the true terms of the loan; 3) abusing the value of Plaintiff's income and used it
as a device to falsely qualify her for a loan that she could not truly afford; 4) setting Plaintiff
up to default and be unable to pay the loan from the very beginning, and Defendant lender
knew or should have known this, Defendant lender is now attempting to benefit from their
wrongful or negligent conduct by pursuing non-judicial foreclosure, and the loan simply
should never have been entered into; 5) failing to apprise Plaintiff of the Home Affordable
Programs under President Obama’s plan to assist Plaintiff in modifying their mortgage
through FHABA (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac); 6) failing to follow the payment schedule
according to the terms in the deed of trust and instead charged in excess of what was owed,
and/or generally failed to exercise proper discretion when enforcing the terms of the contract;
7) wrongfully disqualifying Plaintiff for the HAMP program and failed to review Plaintiff's
loan in good faith; 8) violating the provisions of CC §§ 2923.6 and 2923 et seq., because
although they declared that they do have a comprehensive loan program, they do not, or did
not qualify Plaintiff for the program in bad faith, or simply did not offer a program which
would satisfy Plaintiff's needs and therefore did not offer a satisfactory program; 9) failing to
provide information and access to their alleged ‘comprehensive loss mitigation assistance
program’ in good faith; 10) failing to provide a means of obtaining information on the
Plaintiff’s Complaint - 10specific reasons why Plaintiff supposedly could not qualify for HAMP and could not obtain
any information on appeals which could be made to qualify; 11) failing to provide
information and access to ‘sale information’ as indicated on the Notice of Trustee’s Sale; 12)
failing to use good faith efforts to help Plaintiff keep her home; or 13) whether or not
Defendants violated other statutes or committed or omitted other wrongful acts, all as
described in the foregoing.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and for relief as set forth in the
Prayer for Relief.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE
(AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS)
48. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-10 as if fully set forth herein.
49.
50.
Based on the conduct described in the foregoing, Defendants have wrongfully sought
foreclosure proceedings.
Defendants have wrongfully foreclosed by: 1) placing Plaintiff into an inequitable loan as
described above which Plaintiff never should have qualified for or have been placed into; 2)
failing to properly advise Plaintiff of the true terms of the loan; 3) abusing the value of
Plaintiff's income and used it as a device to falsely qualify her for a loan that she could not
truly afford; 4) setting Plaintiff up to default and be unable to pay the loan from the very
beginning, and Defendant lender knew or should have known this, Defendant lender is now
attempting to benefit from their wrongful or negligent conduct by pursuing non-judicial
foreclosure, and the loan simply should never have been entered into; 5) failing to apprise
Plaintiff of the Home Affordable Programs under President Obama’s plan to assist Plaintiff
in modifying her mortgage through FHABA (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac); 6) failing to
Plaintiff’s Complaint - il52.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and for relief as set forth in the
Prayer for Relief.
_ As a result of Defendants’ wrongful foreclosure, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm by
follow the payment schedule according to the terms in the deed of trust and instead charged
in excess of what was owed, and/or generally failed to exercise proper discretion when
enforcing the terms of the contract; 7) wrongfully disqualifying Plaintiff for the HAMP
program and failed to review Plaintiff's loan in good faith; 8) violating the provisions of CC
§§ 2923.6 and 2923 et seq., because although they declared that they do have a
comprehensive loan program, they do not, or did not qualify Plaintiff for the program in bad
faith, or simply did not offer a program which would satisfy Plaintiffs needs and therefore
did not offer a satisfactory program; 11) failing to provide information and access to their
alleged ‘comprehensive loss mitigation assistance program’ in good faith; 12) failing to
provide a means of obtaining information on the specific reasons why Plaintiff supposedly
could not qualify for HAMP and could not obtain any information on appeals which could be
made to qualify; 13) failing to provide information and access to ‘sale information’ as
indicated on the Notice of Trustee’s Sale; 14) failing to use good faith efforts to help Plaintiff]
keep her home; or 15) whether or not Defendants violated other statutes or committed or
omitted other wrongful acts, all as described in the foregoing.
being threatened with the eminent loss of the Property should the sale on be carried out, and
Plaintiff will not have an adequate remedy at law.
Asa proximate result of the negligent actions of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered
consequential damage and will continue to suffer additional damage in an amount according
to proof.
Plaintiff’s Complaint - 12~.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as
follows:
1) Declaring the rights and duties of the parties, including recompense for any damages;
2) For an order requiring Defendants, and each of them, to show cause, if any, why they
should not be enjoined temporarily and permanently from acting under, for, or in concert
with each other to deprive Plaintiff of her property, and to enjoin them from selling or
causing to be sold, any of the property owned by Plaintiff;
3) That the Defendants be required to provide a workout or modification of Plaintiff's
loan in good faith, or attempt to do so in good faith;
4) That the Court render an accounting between each party and determine the amount, if
any, actually due and owing from Plaintiff to Defendants;
5) For general and special damages according to proof at trial;
6) For general damages, according to proof at trial;
7) For reasonable attorney fees;
8) For interest, according to proof;
9) For costs of suit incurred herein;
10) For such further relief and other relief as the Court deems proper.
. ay
pak C ka 0 —— Dated: November 22, 2010
RICHARD C. SINCLAIR, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff
Plaintiff's Complaint - 13
Preview
OA SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Nov-24-2010 8:59 am Case Number: CGC-10-505594 Filing Date: Nov-24-2010 8:54 Juke Box: 001 Image: 03042129 COMPLAINT OULA VASILOGIORGIS VS. DONALD A. GLAZER, AS TRUSTEES OF THE GLAZER LIVIN 001003042129 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.SUM-100 (CITACON. DICIAL) elo coer NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AVISO AL DEMANDADO): Donald A. Glazer and Alice A. Glazer, as Co-Trustees of the Glazer Living Trust Dated December 30, 1987; PLM Lender Services, Inc., and Does 1 to 1 YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: (LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): Foula Vasilogiorgis NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. ‘Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken without further warning from the court. There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case. JAVISO! Lo han demandado. Sino responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su version. Lea la informaci6n a continuaci6n. Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citacion y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta 0 una llamada telefénica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta. Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informaci6n en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte. ca.gov), en la biblioteca de leyes de su condado 0 en la corte que le quede més cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentacin, pida al secretario de la corte que fe dé un formulario de exencién de pago de cuotas. Sino presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le podré quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia. Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que llame a un abogado inmediatamente. ‘Sino conoce a un abogado, puede llamar a un servicio de remision a abogados. Sino puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services, (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), en e! Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte,ca.gov) o poniéndose en contacto con Ja corte o el colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre cualquier recuperacién de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo 0 una concesi6n de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso. The name and address of the court is: e | 0 ’ 5 0 5 5 9 4 (El nombre y direccién de la corte es): Superior Court of California County of San Francisco 400 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is: (El nombre, ta direcci6n y el numero de teléfono del abogado del demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es): Richard C. Sinclair, Esq., SBN 068238, P O Box 1628, Oakdale, CA 95361 — (209) 847-8788 oxTE, NOW 2 4 on SLERK OF THE COURT —ierk, by ae f Deni (Fecha) (Secretario) (For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).) 7 (Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)). NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served 1. [_] asan individual defendant. 2. [__] as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify): 'g, [1] on behalf of (specify): i 2 under: L_] CCP 416.10 (corporation) CO CCP 416.60 (minor) / [] CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) [—] CCP 416.70 (conservatee) ( ccp 416.40 (association or partnership) [__] CCP 416.90 (authorized person) _ other (specify): 4. i (date): by personal delivery on (date): page-tott rnaarrar cre SUMMONS cesonrmran cee SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009][ ATTORNEY OF BARTY QUTHEUT ATTORNEY A areySaggenr numer ana acess) FOR COURT USE ONLY “1 Attorney at Law PO Box 1628 Oakdale, CA 95361 TELEPHONE NO (309) 847-8788 Faxno. (209) 847-7077 ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Plaintiff |SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF- SAN FRANCISCO STREET ADDRESS: wauincanpress: 400 McAllister Street cry anoz cove: San Francisco, CA 94102 BRANCH NAME CASE NAME: Vasilogiorgis vs. Glazer, et al. CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation “CGC . 1 . 5 9 anes Oo tamoent [5 counter [_] Joinder - ft - 8 4 demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant W0GE exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto (22) [_] Breach of contractwarranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403) Uninsured motorist (46) L_] Rule 3.740 collections (09) L_] AntitrustyTrade regulation (03) Other P/PDIWD (Personal Injury/Property Other collections (09) L__] Construction defect (10) DamageWrongful Death) Tort LJ Insurance coverage (18) LJ] Mass tort (40) Asbestos (04) Other contract (37) [_] Securities litigation (28) Product liability (24) Real Property Environmental/Toxic tort (30) Medical malpractice (45) Eminent domainvinverse Insurance coverage claims arising from the Other PI/PD/WD (23) ___ condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case Non-PU/PDWD (Other) Tort Wrongful eviction (33) types (41) Business torvunfair business practice (07) LY] Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment (_] ivi rights (08) Unlawful Detainer [_] enforcement of judgment (20) Defamation (13) ‘Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Fraud (16) L_] Residential (32) RICO (27) Intellectual property (19) LI Drugs (38) Other complaint (not specified above) (42) LJ Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition [_] other non-P/PDIWD tort (35) L— Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment Petition re: arbitration award (11) Other petition (not specified above) (43) __] Wrongful termination (36) [L_] writ of mandate (02) ‘Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39) 2. This case is LY] isnot complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: ald Large number of separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses b. Oo Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court c. Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. CO Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a._¥_| monetary b.L¥ ] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief ©. punitive 4, Number of causes of action (specify): Nine 5. Thiscase L_lis [¥lisnot aclass action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-0, cz Date: November 23, 2010 — : RICHARD C. SINCLAIR, ESQ. — (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) GNATURE.OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) NOTICE Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions. * File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. © If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. © Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes ony. 1of 2 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400-3.403, 3.740; “uacia Counci of Calfoma CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal Standards of Judlcial Adrinitation, st. 310 ‘CM-010 (Rev. July 1, 2007] wwnw.courtinfo.ca.gov1 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET cm-o10 To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 4. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check ‘one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case” under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. Auto Tort Auto (22)-Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the case involves an uninsured motorist claim subject to arbitration, check this item instead of Auto) Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/ Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Asbestos (04) Asbestos Property Damage Asbestos Personal Injury/ Wrongful Death Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) (24) Medical Malpractice (45) Medical Malpractice— Physicians & Surgeons Other Professional Health Care Malpractice Other PI/PD/WD (23) Premises Liability (e.g. slip and fall) Intentional Bodily injury/PDAWD (eg., assault, vandalism) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Other PI/PD/WD- Non-PI/PDIWD (Other) Tort Business Tort/Unfair Business Practice (07) Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination, false arrest) (not civil harassment) (08) Defamation (e.g., slander, libel) (13) Fraud (16) Intellectual Property (19) Professional Negligence (25) Legal Malpractice Other Professional Malpractice CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contract Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) Contract/Warranty Breach—Seller Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Negligent Breach of Contract/ Warranty Other Breach of Contract/Warranty Collections (e.g., money owed, open book accounts) (09) Collection Case—Seller Plaintiff Other Promissory Note/Collections Case Insurance Coverage (not provisionally complex) (18) Auto Subrogation Other Coverage Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Dispute Real Property Eminent Domair/Inverse Condemnation (14) Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Real Property (e.g., quiet title) (26) Writ of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet Title Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlordfenant, or foreclosure) Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Residential (32) Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal drugs, check this item; otherwise, report as Commercial or Residential) Judicial Review Asset Forfeiture (05) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Writ of Mandate (02) Writ-Administrative Mandamus Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403) Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) Securities Litigation (28) Environmental/Toxic Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims (arising from provisionally complex case type listed above) (41) Enforcement of Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of County) Confession of Judgment (non- domestic relations) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) Petition/Certification of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Other Enforcement of Judgment a Miscellaneous Civil Complaint RICO (27) Other Complaint (not specified above) (42) Declaratory Relief Only injunctive Relief Only (non- harassment) Mechanics Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-complex) Other Civil Complaint (non-tortnon-complex) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Partnership and Corporate Governance (21) Other Petition (not specified above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change (not medical or legal) Case Matter Petition for Relief From Late Other Non-PI/PD/WD Tort (35) Writ-Other Limited Court Case Claim Employment Review Other Civil Petition Wrongful Termination (36) Other Judicial Review (39) Other Employment (15) Review of Health Officer Order Notice of Appeal-Labor Commissioner Appeals. ‘CN-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Page 2 of 2RICHARD C. SINCLAIR, SBN: 068238 ATTORNEY AT LAW P.O. Box 1628 Oakdale, CA 95361 TEL: (209) 847-8788 FAX: (209) 847-7077 CASH MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE SET Attorney for Plaintiff APR 2 9 201 - 90 AM SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 TO 10, 7) UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT (VIOLATION OF BUS & PC § 17500) 8) UCL (VIOLATION OF BUS. & P. C. § 17200) 9) WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE Defendants. ‘BRPARIMENT 212 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO FOULA VASILOGIORGIS, ) CASENO: 0 GC= 14° 68 45 94 ) Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT FOR: ) vs. ) 1) DECLARATORY RELIEF ) 2) INJUNCTION; DONALD A. GLAZER AND ALICE A. ) 3) ACCOUNTING; GLAZER, AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE ) 4) BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD GLAZER LIVING TRUST DATED } 5) BRE OT TRACT DECEMBER 30, 1987; PLM LENDER > FRAUD 3 ) ) ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFF, FOULA VASILOGIORGIS, herein allege as follows: ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 1. PLAINTIFF, FOULA VASILOGIORGIS, is an individual residing in San Francisco County, California. 2, DEFENDANT, DONALD A. GLAZER AND ALICE A. GLAZER, AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE GLAZER LIVING TRUST DATED DECEMBER 30, 1987 (hereafter “Defendant Glazer” or “‘Lender”) is a corporation doing business in San Francisco County, California. Plaintiff's Complaint - 1. DEFENDANT, PLM LENDER SERVICES, INC. (hereafter “PLM” or “Trustee”) is a corporation doing business in San Francisco County, California. . The real property which is the subject of this Complaint is located at 579 Connecticut Street, San Francisco, California 94107, with APN: 27-4100-023-01 (hereafter the “Property”). . The Property is Plaintiff's home and primary residence; the Property is owner-occupied. |. Defendant GLAZER has a Promissory Note secured by a Deed of Trust on the Property all dated September 28, 2006. The Trustee on the Deed of Trust is PLM Lender Services, Inc., al California Corporation. The First Note amounted to $250,000.00, and the Second Note amounted to $484,000.00. Both included acceleration clauses which were not affordable to Plaintiff. . Defendant lender wrongfully and negligently placed Plaintiff into a loan they could not afford; Plaintiff never should have been qualified for the loan. The terms of the loan were severely inequitable, and include the following: a. Atthe very minimum and accounting for interest, the monthly payment should have been $2,286.85. The start rate of the loan, however, was only $2,187.50 per month, a negative amortization charge of $99.35 per month, or a total of $5,961.00 during the 60 month term on the First Note. b. At the very minimum, and accounting for interest, the monthly payment should have been $3,932.50. Borrower may defer $2,400.00 per month and pay $1,532.50 beginning September 1, 2007 for up to one year. c. The combined First and Second should have been a minimum of $6,219.35. d. The combined First and Second provided for a 12 month start rate of $3,819.35 between September 1, 2007 to September 1, 2008, and then the excess $28,800 added to the principal and the monthly interest payment to go to $247.45, increasing the monthly payment on the First to $2,534.70 and the combined monthly payment to Plaintiff’s Complaint - 2$6,475.00 per month, and a monthly income of $20,889.68 to qualify under applicable standards. e. Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs simply could not afford to make these payments. f. The terms of the loan also allow Defendants to charge a prepayment penalty if the Plaintiffs pay off the loan early. g. Defendants failed to adequately apprise and explain to Plaintiff that these were some of the true terms of each loan, and failed to adequately apprise Plaintiff of the effects of both of the loans. 9. Defendant lender wrongfully and negligently placed Plaintiff into a loan they could not afford; Plaintiff never should have been qualified for the loan. 10. Defendants abused the value of Plaintiff’s stated income and used it as a device to falsely qualify them for a loan that they could not truly afford. 11. Defendants were offering the plans, their representatives acted as brokers, and they had a duty to properly qualify Plaintiff for the loans. These loans set Plaintiff up to default from the very beginning, and Defendant lender knew or should have known this, Defendant lender is now attempting to benefit from their wrongful or negligent conduct by pursuing non- judicial foreclosure, and the loans simply should never have been entered into. 12. Defendants failed to apprise Plaintiff of the Home Affordable Programs under President Obama’s plan to assist Plaintiff in modifying their mortgage through FHABA (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). 13. Defendants also did not follow the payment schedule according to the terms in the deed of trust and instead charged in excess of what was owed, and/or generally failed to exercise proper discretion when enforcing the terms of the contract. Plaintiff’s Complaint - 314. 15. 16. 17. 18. Defendants also wrongfully disqualified Plaintiff for the HAMP program and failed to revie Plaintiff's loan in good faith. Defendants also violated the provisions of CC §§ 2923.6 and 2923 et seq., because although they declared that they do have a comprehensive loan program, they do not, or did not qualify Plaintiffs for the program in bad faith, or simply did not offer a program which would satisfy Plaintiffs’ needs and therefore did not offer a satisfactory program. Even if Defendants are exempt pursuant to CC § 2923.53, Defendants have not met the requirement essential to having a comprehensive loan program because they do not have a program which would apply to borrowers such as Plaintiff. When the phone number for ‘sale information’ on the Notice of Trustee’s Sale is dialed, Plaintiffs could not obtain other information regarding the sale or reinstatement information, and the only information which was provided was the date that the property would be sold. Plaintiffs have attempted in good faith to resolve this matter however these attempts have not been successful. . Plaintiff does not know the true names of defendant DOES 1 through 10, and therefore sues them by those fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint when their true names and capacities are ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of that information and belief alleges, that each of those defendants was in some manner intentionally and/or negligently and proximately responsible for the events and happenings alleged in this complaint and for plaintiff's injuries and damages. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on the basis of that information and belief alleges, that at all times mentioned in| this complaint, defendants were the agents and employees of their codefendants, and in doing} the things alleged in this complaint were acting within the course and scope of such agency and employment. Plaintiff alleges that the DOE’s have, or claim to have, an interest in the Property or loans herein describe, the exact nature of which is unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s Complaint - 420. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-7 as if fully set forth herein. 21. A real and actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION DECLARATORY RELIEF (AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS) concerning their respective rights and duties. A controversy exists as to whether or not Defendants: 1) placed Plaintiff into an inequitable loan as described above which Plaintiff never should have qualified for or have been placed into; 2) failed to properly advise Plaintiff] of the true terms of the loan; 3) abused the value of Plaintiff's income and used it as a device to falsely qualify her for a loan that they could not truly afford; 4) these loans set Plaintiff up to default and be unable to pay the loan from the very beginning, and Defendant lender knew or should have known this, Defendant lender is not attempting to benefit from their wrongful or negligent conduct by pursuing non-judicial foreclosure, and the loan simply should never have been entered into; 5) failed to apprise Plaintiff of the Home Affordable Programs under President Obama’s plan to assist Plaintiff in modifying their mortgage through FHABA (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac); 6) followed the payment schedule according to the terms in the deed of trust and instead charged in excess of what was owed, and/or generally failed to exercise proper discretion when enforcing the terms of the contract; 7) wrongfully disqualified Plaintiff for the HAMP program and failed to review Plaintiff's loan in good faith; 8) violated the provisions of CC §§ 2923.6 and 2923 et seq., because although they declared that they do have a comprehensive loan program, they do not, or did not qualify Plaintiff for the program in bad faith, or simply did not offer a program which would satisfy Plaintiff's needs and therefore did not offer a satisfactory program; 9) have provided information and access to their alleged ‘comprehensive loss mitigation assistance program’ in good faith; 10) have provided a means of obtaining information on the specific reasons Plaintiff’s Complaint - 524 25 why Plaintiff supposedly could not qualify for HAMP and could not obtain any information on appeals which could be made to qualify; 11) have provided information and access to sale information’ as indicated on the Notice of Trustee’s Sale; and or 12) whether or not Defendants violated other statutes or committed or omitted other wrongful acts, all as described in the foregoing. 22. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the circumstances, in order that Plaintiffs may ascertain their rights and duties under the promissory notes and deeds of trust. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and for relief as set forth in the Prayer for Relief. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION INJUNCTION (AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS) 23. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-28 as if fully set forth herein. 24. Defendants threaten to, and unless restrained, will continue its pursuance of a non-judicial foreclosure and will sell, or cause to be sold the Property to Plaintiff's great and irreparable injury, for which pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief in that a sale of the property will take place unless restrained and Plaintiff will lose her property, there being no right to redemption from the sale. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and for relief as set forth in the Prayer for Relief. Plaintiff’s Complaint - 6THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION ACCOUNTING (AS TO DEFENDANT GLAZER) 25. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-28 as if fully set forth herein. 26. A relationship is owed by Defendant Glazer as lender and beneficiary to Plaintiff as trustor. 27. A certain balance is due from Defendants to the Plaintiff that can only be ascertained by an accounting. As of the date of this Complaint, the sum owed from Plaintiff to Defendants is not certain and cannot be calculated with reasonable certainty without an accounting. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff requests an accounting. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and for relief as set forth in the Prayer for Relief. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING (AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS) 28. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-28 as if fully set forth herein. 29. The breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires that neither party to a contract take actions that deprive the other of benefits of the agreement. Defendants have breached this covenant by knowingly or negligently placing Plaintiff into a loan that she could not afford, as more fully discussed in the foregoing. 30. Defendants have otherwise breach the convenant of good faith and fair dealing as follows: WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and for relief as set forth in the Prayer for Relief. Plaintiff’s Complaint - 724 25 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT (AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS) 31. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-28 as if fully set forth herein. 32. The parties entered into the first and second notes and deeds of trust as an agreement as described in the foregoing. 33. Defendants breached this agreement by failing to abide by the schedule described in the loan. 34. Defendants further breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by offering and qualifying Plaintiff for a loan that she should not have qualified for, and thereafter by enforcing the terms of that loan which they should not have been provided to them, and by other acts as described in the foregoing. 35. Defendants breached the agreement furthermore by dialing to exercise discretion properly when enforcing the terms of the contract, and violated good faith and fair dealing in setting charges as well. 36. Defendants also breached the agreement by failing to provide new financing or to restructure the terms of the existing loan. 37. Any breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is also a breach of contract] 38. By each of the acts described in the foregoing, Defendants breached their contract with Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and for relief as set forth in the Prayer for Relief. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD (AS TO DEFENDANT GLAZER) Plaintiff’s Complaint - 839, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-28 as if fully set forth herein. 40. Defendants are liable for deceit (CC § 1710) for any suppression of fact by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact. Defendants are also liable for promises made without any intention of performing them. 41. Defendant lender placed Defendants in a loan they could not afford without adequately disclosing to them the true nature of the loan (i.e., terms including the negative amortization), 42. Defendant lender also knew or should have known that the Plaintiff was not able to execute the agreement, and therefore executed the agreement without any intention of performing it. 43. Defendant lender gained an advantage over the Plaintiff by failing to adequately disclose the true nature of the loan including the negative amortization, to Plaintiff's prejudice. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and for relief as set forth in the Prayer for Relief. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT (VIOLATION OF BUS. & P. C. § 17500 (AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS) 44, Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-28 as if fully set forth herein. 45. As described more fully in the foregoing, Defendants have made false or misleading statements intended to induce Plaintiff to enter into the loan by failing to advise Plaintiff properly as to the true nature of the loan and by other acts. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and for relief as set forth in the Prayer for Relief. Plaintiff’s Complaint - 946. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-10 as if fully set forth herein. 47. Based on the foregoing conduct by Defendants, Defendants have at least practiced unfair EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION UCL (VIOLATION OF BUS. & P. C. § 17200 (AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS) conduct in relation to Plaintiff's loan by their business acts and/or practices, including but not limited to: 1) placing Plaintiff into an inequitable loan as described above which Plaintiff never should have qualified for or have been placed into; 2) failing to properly advise Plaintiffs of the true terms of the loan; 3) abusing the value of Plaintiff's income and used it as a device to falsely qualify her for a loan that she could not truly afford; 4) setting Plaintiff up to default and be unable to pay the loan from the very beginning, and Defendant lender knew or should have known this, Defendant lender is now attempting to benefit from their wrongful or negligent conduct by pursuing non-judicial foreclosure, and the loan simply should never have been entered into; 5) failing to apprise Plaintiff of the Home Affordable Programs under President Obama’s plan to assist Plaintiff in modifying their mortgage through FHABA (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac); 6) failing to follow the payment schedule according to the terms in the deed of trust and instead charged in excess of what was owed, and/or generally failed to exercise proper discretion when enforcing the terms of the contract; 7) wrongfully disqualifying Plaintiff for the HAMP program and failed to review Plaintiff's loan in good faith; 8) violating the provisions of CC §§ 2923.6 and 2923 et seq., because although they declared that they do have a comprehensive loan program, they do not, or did not qualify Plaintiff for the program in bad faith, or simply did not offer a program which would satisfy Plaintiff's needs and therefore did not offer a satisfactory program; 9) failing to provide information and access to their alleged ‘comprehensive loss mitigation assistance program’ in good faith; 10) failing to provide a means of obtaining information on the Plaintiff’s Complaint - 10specific reasons why Plaintiff supposedly could not qualify for HAMP and could not obtain any information on appeals which could be made to qualify; 11) failing to provide information and access to ‘sale information’ as indicated on the Notice of Trustee’s Sale; 12) failing to use good faith efforts to help Plaintiff keep her home; or 13) whether or not Defendants violated other statutes or committed or omitted other wrongful acts, all as described in the foregoing. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and for relief as set forth in the Prayer for Relief. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE (AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS) 48. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-10 as if fully set forth herein. 49. 50. Based on the conduct described in the foregoing, Defendants have wrongfully sought foreclosure proceedings. Defendants have wrongfully foreclosed by: 1) placing Plaintiff into an inequitable loan as described above which Plaintiff never should have qualified for or have been placed into; 2) failing to properly advise Plaintiff of the true terms of the loan; 3) abusing the value of Plaintiff's income and used it as a device to falsely qualify her for a loan that she could not truly afford; 4) setting Plaintiff up to default and be unable to pay the loan from the very beginning, and Defendant lender knew or should have known this, Defendant lender is now attempting to benefit from their wrongful or negligent conduct by pursuing non-judicial foreclosure, and the loan simply should never have been entered into; 5) failing to apprise Plaintiff of the Home Affordable Programs under President Obama’s plan to assist Plaintiff in modifying her mortgage through FHABA (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac); 6) failing to Plaintiff’s Complaint - il52. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants and for relief as set forth in the Prayer for Relief. _ As a result of Defendants’ wrongful foreclosure, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm by follow the payment schedule according to the terms in the deed of trust and instead charged in excess of what was owed, and/or generally failed to exercise proper discretion when enforcing the terms of the contract; 7) wrongfully disqualifying Plaintiff for the HAMP program and failed to review Plaintiff's loan in good faith; 8) violating the provisions of CC §§ 2923.6 and 2923 et seq., because although they declared that they do have a comprehensive loan program, they do not, or did not qualify Plaintiff for the program in bad faith, or simply did not offer a program which would satisfy Plaintiffs needs and therefore did not offer a satisfactory program; 11) failing to provide information and access to their alleged ‘comprehensive loss mitigation assistance program’ in good faith; 12) failing to provide a means of obtaining information on the specific reasons why Plaintiff supposedly could not qualify for HAMP and could not obtain any information on appeals which could be made to qualify; 13) failing to provide information and access to ‘sale information’ as indicated on the Notice of Trustee’s Sale; 14) failing to use good faith efforts to help Plaintiff] keep her home; or 15) whether or not Defendants violated other statutes or committed or omitted other wrongful acts, all as described in the foregoing. being threatened with the eminent loss of the Property should the sale on be carried out, and Plaintiff will not have an adequate remedy at law. Asa proximate result of the negligent actions of Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered consequential damage and will continue to suffer additional damage in an amount according to proof. Plaintiff’s Complaint - 12~. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1) Declaring the rights and duties of the parties, including recompense for any damages; 2) For an order requiring Defendants, and each of them, to show cause, if any, why they should not be enjoined temporarily and permanently from acting under, for, or in concert with each other to deprive Plaintiff of her property, and to enjoin them from selling or causing to be sold, any of the property owned by Plaintiff; 3) That the Defendants be required to provide a workout or modification of Plaintiff's loan in good faith, or attempt to do so in good faith; 4) That the Court render an accounting between each party and determine the amount, if any, actually due and owing from Plaintiff to Defendants; 5) For general and special damages according to proof at trial; 6) For general damages, according to proof at trial; 7) For reasonable attorney fees; 8) For interest, according to proof; 9) For costs of suit incurred herein; 10) For such further relief and other relief as the Court deems proper. . ay pak C ka 0 —— Dated: November 22, 2010 RICHARD C. SINCLAIR, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff Plaintiff's Complaint - 13