On August 09, 2018 a
Order
was filed
involving a dispute between
Jenkins Darryl,
Jenkins Lynne,
and
Bayview Loan Servicing Llc,
The Bank Of New York Mellon,
The Bank Of New York Not In Its,
for civil
in the District Court of Los Angeles County.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Civil Division
South Central District, Compton Courthouse, Department A
TC029244 October 22, 2019
DARRYL JENKINS,ET AL. VS. BAYVIEW LOAN 9:00 AM
SERVICING, LLC ET AL.
Judge: Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka CSR: None
Judicial Assistant: A. Easley ERM: None
Courtroom Assistant: K. Johnson Deputy Sheriff: None
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff(s): Jamie E Wright by Stephen J. Chichportich
For Defendant(s): Preston Konow Ascherin by Parisa Jassim (Telephonic)
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Order to
Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute
Matter are called for hearing:
Counsel argue. Court's tentative ruling is adopted as its final ruling:
I. Background
Plaintiffs Darryl Jenkins and Lynne Jenkins allege various violations of consumer protection
laws in the foreclosure of their property. They seek the cancellation of several title documents.
Plaintiffs took out a loan with Quick Loan Funding in 2006. Plaintiff failed to make payments in
2008. In 2011, an assignment of deed of trust was executed in favor of Defendant Bank of New
York Mellon, as trustee for the 2006-BC5 Trust (“BONY”). Plaintiffs dispute this assignment. In
2013 a Notice of Default was recorded against the property, which, Plaintiffs allege, falsely
claimed BONY possessed the power to foreclose on the property. In a letter dated September 15,
2017, Defendant Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, informed
Plaintiffs that Bayview was attempting to collect Plaintiffs’ debt on behalf of the current owner.
Defendants Bayview and BONY now move for judgment on the pleadings on claim preclusion
grounds. An opposition and reply have been filed and considered.
For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.
II. Standard
A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be brought on the basis that the “complaint does
Minute Order Page 1 of 4
Document Filed Date
October 22, 2019
Case Filing Date
August 09, 2018
Status
Court-Ordered Dismissal - Before Trial - Lack of Prosecution 02/15/2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division South Central District, Compton Courthouse, Department A TC029244 October 22, 2019 DARRYL JENKINS,ET AL. VS. BAYVIEW LOAN 9:00 AM SERVICING, LLC ET AL. Judge: Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka CSR: None Judicial Assistant: A. Easley ERM: None Courtroom Assistant: K. Johnson Deputy Sheriff: None APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff(s): Jamie E Wright by Stephen J. Chichportich For Defendant(s): Preston Konow Ascherin by Parisa Jassim (Telephonic) NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute Matter are called for hearing: Counsel argue. Court's tentative ruling is adopted as its final ruling: I. Background Plaintiffs Darryl Jenkins and Lynne Jenkins allege various violations of consumer protection laws in the foreclosure of their property. They seek the cancellation of several title documents. Plaintiffs took out a loan with Quick Loan Funding in 2006. Plaintiff failed to make payments in 2008. In 2011, an assignment of deed of trust was executed in favor of Defendant Bank of New York Mellon, as trustee for the 2006-BC5 Trust (“BONY”). Plaintiffs dispute this assignment. In 2013 a Notice of Default was recorded against the property, which, Plaintiffs allege, falsely claimed BONY possessed the power to foreclose on the property. In a letter dated September 15, 2017, Defendant Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, informed Plaintiffs that Bayview was attempting to collect Plaintiffs’ debt on behalf of the current owner. Defendants Bayview and BONY now move for judgment on the pleadings on claim preclusion grounds. An opposition and reply have been filed and considered. For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion. II. Standard A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be brought on the basis that the “complaint does Minute Order Page 1 of 4