Preview
1 ROBERT J. GANDY (State Bar No, 225405)
rjg@severson.com E-FILED
2 STEPHEN D. BRITT (State Bar No. 279793) 3/16/2020 4:51 PM
sxb@severson.aom Superior Court of California
J SEVERSON & WERSON County of Fresno
A Professional Corporation By: C. York, Deputy
4 The Atrium
19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 700
5 Irvine, California 92612
Telephone: (949) 442-7 1 10
6 Facsimile: (949) 442-7 1 18
7 Attorneys for Defendant
BANK OF AMERICA, N.4., named here in its
8 own capacity and as successor by April 27,2009
de jure merger with Countrywide Bank, FSB
9 (erroneously sued as Countrywide Bank, FSB)
10
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFOR¡{IA
11
COUNTY OF FRESNO
I2
RICK LOYD, an Individual, Case No. 20C8CG00537
t3 Assigned for All Purposes to
Plaintiff, Hon. Alan Simpson
I4 Dept. 502
VS.
15 NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND
BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S
16 ASSOCIATION; RUSHMORE LOAN COMPLIANT; MEMORANDUM OF
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
I7 COLTNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB; and DOES 1 SUPPORT THEREOF
THROUGH 15 INCLUSIVE,
l8 Filed concurrently with Request for Judicial
Defendants Notice
19
Date: June 2,2020
20 Time: 3:30 p.m.
Dept.: 502
21
Action Filed February 11,2020
22 Trial Date: None Set
z3
24
25
26
27
28
70000,3 633 I | 526
1826.1
of Demurrer and Demurrer to Complaint
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Pase
J NOTICE OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT..,,,. .........lX
4 DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT..... X
5 DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CODE CIV. PROC $ 430.41
6
I. INTRODUCTION..... I
7
il. STATEMENT OF THE RELEVANT FACTS 1
I A. Original Loans
9
B. The Refinance Loan... 2
10
1. Plainti.ff's Loan Modification....... 2
11
2. Actions Subsequent To BANA's Involvement As Loan Servicer. 2
T2
III. LEGAL STANDARD J
13
IV PLAINTIFF' S NEGLIGENCE CLAIM NECES SARI LY FAIL S J
14
15
A. Plaintiff s Cause Of Action Is Long Time-Barred ............ J
t6 B. Plaintiff Cannot Establish A Duty Of Care Owed To Him..... 4
1l C. Plaintiff Fails To Plead Breach Or Injuries Proximately Caused by BANA... 5
18 V. PLAINTIFF'S MISREPRESENTATION & FRAUD CLAIMS FAIL......., 6
19 A. Plaintiff s Fraud Claims Are Long Time-Barred.............. 7
20 B. Plaintiff Fails To Plead Any Misrepresentation Of Fact With Requisite
Specificity 7
21
22 C. To The Extent That Plaintiff Claims To Have Relied Upon Any Alleged
Statement That The Loan Modification Was Affordable, He Cannot Utilize
23 'These Statements To Support His Fraud Claims...... 8
24 D. Plaintiff Fails To Sufficiently Plead The Element Of Resulting Injury 9
25 VI. PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATORY RELIEF IS MOOT AGAINST BANA &
REQUESTS RELIEF NOT AVAILABLE TO HIM AS A MATTER OF LAW,...,..
26
VII PLAINTIFF CANNOT QUIET TITLE IN HIS FAVOR l0
27
28
70000.3 633 / I 5261826.r
Table of Contents
I VIII PLAINTIFF'S PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CLAIM IS INCURABLY
DEFECTIVE.............. .....11
2
A. Plaintiff Fails To Plead A "Clear And Unambiguous Promise" ' .....11
J
4
B. Plaintiff s Claim Fails The Statute Of Frauds .....12
5
C. Plaintiff Pleads No Detrimental Reliance or Consideration ....... ..... t2
6 IX, PLAINTIFF'S ACCOUNTING CLAIM IS INCURABLY DEFECTIVE .....13
7 X. PLAINTIFF'S UCL CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED.. ..... 14
8 XI. CONCLUSION.......... .....15
9
10
11
I2
t3
I4
15
t6
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
0000.3 633 I I s26 1826.1
'7
11
Table of Contents
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 PlcB(s)
J FnoBRu, C¡,sBs
4 Andre v. Bank of America, N.A.
(NLD. Cal.20t4) 2014WL 6895240 .. 14
5
Badame v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A
6
(9th Ctu. 2016) 641 Fed.Appx.707 .... 5
7
Carrillo v. Wells Fargo
8 (C.D.Cal.20I7) 2017 wL 1234210 t4
9 Cornejo v. Ocwen Loan Serv., LLC
(8.D. Cal. 2015) 151 F.Supp.3d 1102 5
10
Deschaine v. IndyMac Mortg. Servs.
11
(gth Cir. 2015) 617 Fed.Appx. 690 5
12
Desffino v. Reiswig
13 (gth Cir. 2011) 630 F.3d 952 7,8
t4 Diller v. Ditech Fin., LLC
(N.D. Cal.2 0r7) 2017 WL 2986247 t4
15
Fevinger v. Bank of Am., N.A.
T6
G\r.D. CaL2014) 2014WL 1338301 . 5
l7
Forster v. l4/ells Fargo Bank, N.A.
18 Q.{.D.CaI.2018) 2018 WL 509967 5
t9 Grffin v. Green Tree Serv., LLC
(C.D. Cal.2015) 166 F.Supp,3d 1030 5
20
Hosseini v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
2l (N.D.Ca1.2013) 2013 V/L 4279632 14
22
Jensen v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp.
23 (E.D.Cal. 2010) 702 F.Supp.2d 1183....... 11
24 Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Ind. Group
(8.D.Ca1.2010) 713 F.Supp,2d 1092 9
25
Lockheed Missile & Space Co. v. Hughes Aircraft Co.
26 (N.D. CaL 1995) 887 F.Supp.1320 12
27
Marques v. Wells Fargo Bank
28 CN.D.Cal. 2016) 2016 wL 5942329 ,.,'.,,14
0000.3 633 I I 5261826.1
'1
111
Table of Authorities
1 Mehta v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(S.D.Cal. 2010) 737 F.Supp.2d 1185... t2
2
Nool v. Homeq Servicing
J (E.D.Cal. 6
2009) 653 F.Supp.2d 1047
4
Ortiz v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.
5
(S.D. Cal. 2009) 639 F.Supp.2drl59..... 11
6 Patera v. CitiBank, N.A.
(N.D.Cal. 2015) 79 F.Supp.3d 1074 t2
7
Renteria v. US.
8 (D.Ariz. 2006) 452 F.Supp.2d910 8
9
Shupe v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC
10
(8.D. Cal. 2017) 231 F.Supp.3d s97 .... 5
11 Welte v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
(C.D.Cal.20 1 6) 1 89 F.Supp. 3d 965 5
12
Willis v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
13 (E.D.Cal.20l7) 2s0 F.Supp.3d 628 5
t4 Wiskind v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Q'{.D.Ca1.201 5) 201 5 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 5 1088 . 13
15
T6 Srnrn CasBs
17 Aas v. Super. Ct.
(2000) 24 Cal.4th627 5
18
Abbot v. Stevens
I9 (1 955) I 33 Cal.App.2d 242 ......,..9
20 Aguilar v. Bocci
(1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 47s 11
21
22 Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist.
(1992) 2 Cal.4th962 .......... J
23
Baldwin v. Marina City Properties, Inc
24 (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 393 l0
25 Batt v. City and County of San Francisco
(2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 65 13
26
27 Blank v. Kirwan
â
(1985) 39 Cal.3d 31 1 -l
28
0000.3 633 I I 526 | 826.1
'7
IV
Table of Authorities
I Brown v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co
(20t 6) 247 Cal. Ãpp. th 27 5 ........ l0
2
a
CaL Trust Co. v. Gustason
J (1940) 7
15 Ca1.2d268..
4
City of Cotati v. Cashman
5
(2002) 29 Cal.4th69 . 10
6 County of San Diego v. State
(2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 580 10
7
Doddv. Citizens Bqnk of Costa Mesa
I (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1624 -)
9
Erlich v. Menezes
(1999) 2r Cal.4th543 5
10
11 Fox v. Pollack
(1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 954 6
t2
Garcia v. World Savings, FSB
13 (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1031 . 1l
14 Glue-Fold, Inc. v. Slautterback Corp
(2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1018....... ........13
15
16 Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
(2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1r49 ........... 10
t7
Hawran v. Hixson
18 (2012) 209 Cal. App.4th 256 . i5
t9 Intengan v. BAC Home Loans Serv. LP
(20 1 3) 21 4 Cal. App.4th 1047 4
20
Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A
21
(2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 497 ........
10
22
,Iones v. l(achovia Bank
23 (20 | 4) 23 0 Cal. App.4th 93 5 12
24 Kan v. Guild Mortg. Co.
(20 I 4) 23 0 Cal. Ap p.4th 73 6 l0
25
Khouryv. Maly's of Cal., Inc.
26
(1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612 14
27
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.
28 (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1 134.....,.... l5
70000.3 633 / | 526 1826. I V
Table of Authorities
1 Krantz v. BT Visual Images, LLC
(2001) 89 Cal.App .4th 164 .... ... 15
2
a
Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct
J (201 1) 51 Cal.4th t4
310 ,
4
Laks v. Coast Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n,
60 Cal.App.3d 885 12
5
6 Lazar v. Super. Ct.
(1996) 12Cal. th63I 6
7
Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Serv., LP
I (20 1 3) 221 Cal.App. th 49 ...4,5,17
9
Mabry v. Super. Ct.
(2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 208 4
10
11 Madrid v. Perot Systems Corp.
(2005) 1 30 Cal.App.4th 440 .... 15
I2
Marketing West, Inc. v. Sanyo Fisher (USA) Corp.
13 (t992) 6 Cal.App.4th 6a3 6
I4 McDowell v. Watson
(1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1155 .',,.9
15
I6 Miller v. Provost
(t994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1703 .. 11
t7
Mitsui Man. Bankv. Super. Ct.
18 (1 989) 212 Cal. App.3d 726 .. 4
T9 Nagy v. Nagy
(1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1262 9
20
Nguyen v. Calhoun
2I
(2003) I 05 Cal.App. th 428 T2
22
Oalrs Mgmt. Corp. v. Sup. Ct.
23 (2006) 1 45 Cal.App. th 453 8
24 People ex rel. Hqruis v. Rizzo
(20 1 3) 21 4 Cal. App.4fh 921 ......,,.9
25
Perlas v. GMAC Mortg., LLC
26
(201 0) I 87 Cal.App.4th 429 8
27
Price v. Starbucks Corp.
28 (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1136 15
70000.3 633 / | 5261826.t VI
Table of Authorities
1 Racine & Laramie, Ltd. v. Dept. of Parlcs & Rec
(1992) II Cal.App .4th 1026 4
2
Ragland v. tlS. Bank, N.A.
J (2012) 209 Cal\pp.4th I 82 .. 4
4
Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp
5
(2004) 34 Cal4th979 .......... 5
6 ,Ross v. Creel Printing & Publ'g
(2002) I 00 Cal.App.4th 73 6 3
7
Santa Anita Cos., Inc. v. Westfield Corp., Inc.
8 (2005) 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 728.... 7
9
Saterbakv. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
(2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 808 10
10
1l Schep v. Capital One, N.A.
a
(2017) l2 Cal.App.5th 1331, 1338 J
t2
Secrest v. Securily Nat. Mortg. Loan Trust
13 2002-2 (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 544 .... t2
14 St. James Church v. Super. Ct.
(19s5) 135 Cal.App.2d 352. 13,14
15
t6 Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
(1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153 6,8
t7
Teselle v. McLoughlin
18 (2009) 1 73 Cal.App.4th 156 13
t9 Wøgner v. Benson
(1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 27 4,8
20
Wilhelm v. Pray, Price, Williams & Russell
2t
(1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1324 7
22
Zumbrun v. Univ. of S. Cal.
23 (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1 9
24 Sr¡rn Srarurns
25 Bus. & Prof. Code l4
S 17204
26 l,14,
California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") 15
27
28
70000.3 633 I | 526 t826.1 vll
Table of Authorities
1 Civ. Code
$ 338(d) .7
2 12
$ 16e8(c)..........
ç 2922 T2
J
4
Code Civ. Proc.
$ 33s.1................ ,4
5 $ 33s.1,338(c)(1) .4
$ 338(cX1) ,4
a
6 $ 430.10....
11
7 10
8
Orupn AurHoRltlps
9
I Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (1Oth ed. 2005) Contracts, $ 218 ..,,' |2
i0
5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, Pleading (4th ed.1997) $ 819 l3
11
5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed.1997) Pleading, $ 817 10
t2
5 Witkin, California Procedure (2008) 7
13
l4
15
t6
17
18
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
2l
28
70000.3633It5261826
1 vlll
Table of Authorities
I NOTICE OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
2 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
J PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 2, 2020, at 3:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
4 counsel may be heard in Departmenf 502 of the above-entitled Court, located at 1130 O Street,
5 Fresno, CA93T2I, a hearing will be held on the Demurrer of Defendant BANK OF AMERICA,
6 N.4., named here in its own capacity and as successor by April 27 ,2009 de jure merger with
7 Countrywide Bank, FSB (erroneously sued as Countrywide Bank, FSB) ("BANA") to the
8 Complaint filed by Plaintiff RICK LOYD ("Plaintiff').
9 The Demurrer is brought under Code of Civil Procedure $ 430.10(e) in that neither the
10 Complaint nor any of its causes of action state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action
11 against BANA.
T2 The Demurrer is based on this Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer, the accompanying
13 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof the pleadings and records of the Couft,
I4 the accompanying Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN") and any further oral and documentary
15 evidence that may be presented at the hearing.
t6
17 DATED: March 16,2020 SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional Corporation
18
t9
By:
20
Stephen D. Britt
2l
Attorneys for Defendant
22 N.4.,
BANK OF AMERICA, named here in its own
capacity and as successor by April 27 ,2009 de jure
z)
merger with Countrywide Bank, FSB (erroneously sued
24 as Countryrvide Bank, FSB)
25
26
27
28
70000.3 633 I | 526 | 826.1 IX
Notice of Demurrer to Plaintifls Cornplaint
1 DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
2 Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.4., named here in its own capacity and as successor
J by April 27 ,2009 de jure merger with Countrywide Bank, FSB (erroneously sued as Countrywide
4 Bank, FSB) ("BANA") hereby demurs to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff RICK LOYD
5 ("Plaintiff'), on the following grounds:
6 DEMURRER TO FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
7 (Negligence)
8 The first cause of action for "Negligence" does not state facts sufflrcient to constitute a
9 cause of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430.10(e).)
10 DEMURRER TO SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
11 (Fraudulent Misrep resentation)
t2 The second cause of action for "Fraudulent Misrepresentation" does not state facts
13 sufficient to constitute a cause of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430.10(e).)
I4 DEMURRER TO THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
15 (Negligent Misrepresentation)
t6 The third cause of action for'Negligent Misrepresentation" does not state facts suffrcient
ll to constitute a cause of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430'10(e).)
l8 DEMURRER TO FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
I9 (Fraudu lent Concealment)
20 The fourth cause of action for "Fraudulent Concealment" does not state facts suffrcient to
2l constitute a cause of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430.10(e).)
22 DEMURRER TO FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
23 (Fraudulent Promise Without Intention To Perform)
24 The fifth cause of action for "Fraudulent Promise Without Intention To Perform" does not
25 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430.10(e).)
26 DEMURRER TO SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
27 (Declaratory Relief)
28 The sixth cause of action for "Declaratory Relief' does not state facts sufficient to
70000.3 633 I | 5261826.1 X
Demurrer to Plaintiff s Complaint
I constitute a cause of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430.10(e).)
2 DEMURRER TO SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
J (Quiet Title)
4 The seventh cause of action to "Quiet Title" does not state facts sufficient to constitute a
5 cause of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430.10(e).)
6 DEMURRER TO EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
7 (Estoppel)
8 The sixth cause of action for "Estoppel" does not state facts sufftcient to constitute a cause
9 of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430.10(e).)
10 DEMURRER TO NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 (Accounting)
I2 The ninth cause of action for an "Accounting" does not state facts suffrcient to constitute a
13 cause of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430.10(e)')
I4 DEMURRER TO TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
15 (Viotation of Bus. & Prof. Code S 17200' et seq.)
I6 The tenth cause of action for "Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code $ 17200, et seq" does not
t7 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430.10(e).)
18
19 DATED: March 16,2020 SEVERSON & WERSON
A Professional
20
2l
22
Stephen D. Britt
23
Attorneys for Defendant
24
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., named here in its own
capacity and as successor by April 27 ,2009 de jure
25
merger with Countrlrvide Bank, FSB (erroneously sued
26 as Countrywide Bank, FSB)
27
28
70000.3 633 I I s26t 826.1 XI
Demurrer to Plaintiff s Complaint
1 DECLARATION OF COMPLIANC4 WITH CODE CIV. PROC. Q 430.41
2 I, Stephen D. Britt, declare as follows:
J 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of California. I am an attorney
4 employed by Severson & Werson, P.C., attorneys of record for Defendant BANK OF AMERICA,
5 N.A. ("BANA") in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration
6 and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testi$ thereto.
7 2. On March 3,2020,I called and left a voice mail message for Adela Z.Ulloa, counsel
I for Plaintiff. In my voicemail, I advised Ms. Ulloa of BANA's intention to file the instant
9 Demurrer, as well as the legal basis for the Demurrer. I requested Ms. Ulloa call me at her earliest
10 convenience so that we meet and confer, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure $ a31.aO(a).
t1 3. On March 4,2020,I sent Ms. Ulloa an email communication with the legal basis for
I2 the Demurrer. I once againrequested Ms. Ulloa contact me at her earliest convenience so that we
i3 could complete the meet and confer requirements under Code Civ. Proc. $ a31.40(a).
T4 4. On March 6,2020,I called and left a voice mail message for Ms. Ulloa, once again
15 advising her of BANA's intention to file the Demurrer, and requesting she call me at her earliest
t6 convenience so that we could complete the meet and confer requirements, pursuant to Code Civ.
17 Proc. $ ß1.a0@).
18 5. On March I1,2020,I received an email from Ms. Ulloa discussing the issues raised
19 in the prior emails and voice mail messages. I responded to this email with my own email requesting
20 Ms. Ulloa's availability to discuss this response telephonically. After receiving no further response,
2l I called and left Ms. Ulloa a further voice mail message requesting she contact me at her earliest
22 convenience to discuss this matter. To date, I have yet to receive any response to these requests.
23 6. Therefore, notwithstanding my good faith efforts, the parties were unable to reach an
24 agreement as to how to resolve the issues described in this demurrer.
25
26
27
28
70000.3 633 / | 5261826.1 xll
Declaration of Compliance with Code Civ. Proc. $ a30.al(a)
I I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing
2 is true and correct.
J Executed this 16th day of March,2020, at Irvine, California.
4
5
6 Stephen D. Britt
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
I4
15
I6
t7
18
I9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
70000.3 633 I I s261826.1 xlll
Declaration of Compliance with Code Civ. Proc. $ a30.a1(a)
i MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
^J In an effort to delay foreclosure proceedings not yet commenced against the subject
4 property, Plaintiff has filed the instant suit against his former loan servicer (BANA) and current
5 servicer, Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC ("Rushmore"). Each of Plaintiff s claims
6 against BANA are incurably defective for a number of reasons. Critically, nearly all of Plaintiff s
7 claims are based upon alleged statements made in or before 2008 prior to Plaintiffls admitted
8 acceptance of a loan modification agreement. All of those claims are thus t
Preview
1 ROBERT J. GANDY (State Bar No, 225405) rjg@severson.com E-FILED 2 STEPHEN D. BRITT (State Bar No. 279793) 3/16/2020 4:51 PM sxb@severson.aom Superior Court of California J SEVERSON & WERSON County of Fresno A Professional Corporation By: C. York, Deputy 4 The Atrium 19100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 700 5 Irvine, California 92612 Telephone: (949) 442-7 1 10 6 Facsimile: (949) 442-7 1 18 7 Attorneys for Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.4., named here in its 8 own capacity and as successor by April 27,2009 de jure merger with Countrywide Bank, FSB 9 (erroneously sued as Countrywide Bank, FSB) 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFOR¡{IA 11 COUNTY OF FRESNO I2 RICK LOYD, an Individual, Case No. 20C8CG00537 t3 Assigned for All Purposes to Plaintiff, Hon. Alan Simpson I4 Dept. 502 VS. 15 NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S 16 ASSOCIATION; RUSHMORE LOAN COMPLIANT; MEMORANDUM OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN I7 COLTNTRYWIDE BANK, FSB; and DOES 1 SUPPORT THEREOF THROUGH 15 INCLUSIVE, l8 Filed concurrently with Request for Judicial Defendants Notice 19 Date: June 2,2020 20 Time: 3:30 p.m. Dept.: 502 21 Action Filed February 11,2020 22 Trial Date: None Set z3 24 25 26 27 28 70000,3 633 I | 526 1826.1 of Demurrer and Demurrer to Complaint 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Pase J NOTICE OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT..,,,. .........lX 4 DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT..... X 5 DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CODE CIV. PROC $ 430.41 6 I. INTRODUCTION..... I 7 il. STATEMENT OF THE RELEVANT FACTS 1 I A. Original Loans 9 B. The Refinance Loan... 2 10 1. Plainti.ff's Loan Modification....... 2 11 2. Actions Subsequent To BANA's Involvement As Loan Servicer. 2 T2 III. LEGAL STANDARD J 13 IV PLAINTIFF' S NEGLIGENCE CLAIM NECES SARI LY FAIL S J 14 15 A. Plaintiff s Cause Of Action Is Long Time-Barred ............ J t6 B. Plaintiff Cannot Establish A Duty Of Care Owed To Him..... 4 1l C. Plaintiff Fails To Plead Breach Or Injuries Proximately Caused by BANA... 5 18 V. PLAINTIFF'S MISREPRESENTATION & FRAUD CLAIMS FAIL......., 6 19 A. Plaintiff s Fraud Claims Are Long Time-Barred.............. 7 20 B. Plaintiff Fails To Plead Any Misrepresentation Of Fact With Requisite Specificity 7 21 22 C. To The Extent That Plaintiff Claims To Have Relied Upon Any Alleged Statement That The Loan Modification Was Affordable, He Cannot Utilize 23 'These Statements To Support His Fraud Claims...... 8 24 D. Plaintiff Fails To Sufficiently Plead The Element Of Resulting Injury 9 25 VI. PLAINTIFF'S DECLARATORY RELIEF IS MOOT AGAINST BANA & REQUESTS RELIEF NOT AVAILABLE TO HIM AS A MATTER OF LAW,...,.. 26 VII PLAINTIFF CANNOT QUIET TITLE IN HIS FAVOR l0 27 28 70000.3 633 / I 5261826.r Table of Contents I VIII PLAINTIFF'S PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL CLAIM IS INCURABLY DEFECTIVE.............. .....11 2 A. Plaintiff Fails To Plead A "Clear And Unambiguous Promise" ' .....11 J 4 B. Plaintiff s Claim Fails The Statute Of Frauds .....12 5 C. Plaintiff Pleads No Detrimental Reliance or Consideration ....... ..... t2 6 IX, PLAINTIFF'S ACCOUNTING CLAIM IS INCURABLY DEFECTIVE .....13 7 X. PLAINTIFF'S UCL CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD BE DISMISSED.. ..... 14 8 XI. CONCLUSION.......... .....15 9 10 11 I2 t3 I4 15 t6 17 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0000.3 633 I I s26 1826.1 '7 11 Table of Contents 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 PlcB(s) J FnoBRu, C¡,sBs 4 Andre v. Bank of America, N.A. (NLD. Cal.20t4) 2014WL 6895240 .. 14 5 Badame v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A 6 (9th Ctu. 2016) 641 Fed.Appx.707 .... 5 7 Carrillo v. Wells Fargo 8 (C.D.Cal.20I7) 2017 wL 1234210 t4 9 Cornejo v. Ocwen Loan Serv., LLC (8.D. Cal. 2015) 151 F.Supp.3d 1102 5 10 Deschaine v. IndyMac Mortg. Servs. 11 (gth Cir. 2015) 617 Fed.Appx. 690 5 12 Desffino v. Reiswig 13 (gth Cir. 2011) 630 F.3d 952 7,8 t4 Diller v. Ditech Fin., LLC (N.D. Cal.2 0r7) 2017 WL 2986247 t4 15 Fevinger v. Bank of Am., N.A. T6 G\r.D. CaL2014) 2014WL 1338301 . 5 l7 Forster v. l4/ells Fargo Bank, N.A. 18 Q.{.D.CaI.2018) 2018 WL 509967 5 t9 Grffin v. Green Tree Serv., LLC (C.D. Cal.2015) 166 F.Supp,3d 1030 5 20 Hosseini v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 2l (N.D.Ca1.2013) 2013 V/L 4279632 14 22 Jensen v. Quality Loan Serv. Corp. 23 (E.D.Cal. 2010) 702 F.Supp.2d 1183....... 11 24 Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Ind. Group (8.D.Ca1.2010) 713 F.Supp,2d 1092 9 25 Lockheed Missile & Space Co. v. Hughes Aircraft Co. 26 (N.D. CaL 1995) 887 F.Supp.1320 12 27 Marques v. Wells Fargo Bank 28 CN.D.Cal. 2016) 2016 wL 5942329 ,.,'.,,14 0000.3 633 I I 5261826.1 '1 111 Table of Authorities 1 Mehta v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (S.D.Cal. 2010) 737 F.Supp.2d 1185... t2 2 Nool v. Homeq Servicing J (E.D.Cal. 6 2009) 653 F.Supp.2d 1047 4 Ortiz v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. 5 (S.D. Cal. 2009) 639 F.Supp.2drl59..... 11 6 Patera v. CitiBank, N.A. (N.D.Cal. 2015) 79 F.Supp.3d 1074 t2 7 Renteria v. US. 8 (D.Ariz. 2006) 452 F.Supp.2d910 8 9 Shupe v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC 10 (8.D. Cal. 2017) 231 F.Supp.3d s97 .... 5 11 Welte v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (C.D.Cal.20 1 6) 1 89 F.Supp. 3d 965 5 12 Willis v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 13 (E.D.Cal.20l7) 2s0 F.Supp.3d 628 5 t4 Wiskind v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Q'{.D.Ca1.201 5) 201 5 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 5 1088 . 13 15 T6 Srnrn CasBs 17 Aas v. Super. Ct. (2000) 24 Cal.4th627 5 18 Abbot v. Stevens I9 (1 955) I 33 Cal.App.2d 242 ......,..9 20 Aguilar v. Bocci (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 47s 11 21 22 Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th962 .......... J 23 Baldwin v. Marina City Properties, Inc 24 (1978) 79 Cal.App.3d 393 l0 25 Batt v. City and County of San Francisco (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 65 13 26 27 Blank v. Kirwan â (1985) 39 Cal.3d 31 1 -l 28 0000.3 633 I I 526 | 826.1 '7 IV Table of Authorities I Brown v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co (20t 6) 247 Cal. Ãpp. th 27 5 ........ l0 2 a CaL Trust Co. v. Gustason J (1940) 7 15 Ca1.2d268.. 4 City of Cotati v. Cashman 5 (2002) 29 Cal.4th69 . 10 6 County of San Diego v. State (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 580 10 7 Doddv. Citizens Bqnk of Costa Mesa I (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1624 -) 9 Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 2r Cal.4th543 5 10 11 Fox v. Pollack (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 954 6 t2 Garcia v. World Savings, FSB 13 (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1031 . 1l 14 Glue-Fold, Inc. v. Slautterback Corp (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1018....... ........13 15 16 Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1r49 ........... 10 t7 Hawran v. Hixson 18 (2012) 209 Cal. App.4th 256 . i5 t9 Intengan v. BAC Home Loans Serv. LP (20 1 3) 21 4 Cal. App.4th 1047 4 20 Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A 21 (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 497 ........ 10 22 ,Iones v. l(achovia Bank 23 (20 | 4) 23 0 Cal. App.4th 93 5 12 24 Kan v. Guild Mortg. Co. (20 I 4) 23 0 Cal. Ap p.4th 73 6 l0 25 Khouryv. Maly's of Cal., Inc. 26 (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612 14 27 Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. 28 (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1 134.....,.... l5 70000.3 633 / | 526 1826. I V Table of Authorities 1 Krantz v. BT Visual Images, LLC (2001) 89 Cal.App .4th 164 .... ... 15 2 a Kwikset Corp. v. Super. Ct J (201 1) 51 Cal.4th t4 310 , 4 Laks v. Coast Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 60 Cal.App.3d 885 12 5 6 Lazar v. Super. Ct. (1996) 12Cal. th63I 6 7 Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Serv., LP I (20 1 3) 221 Cal.App. th 49 ...4,5,17 9 Mabry v. Super. Ct. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 208 4 10 11 Madrid v. Perot Systems Corp. (2005) 1 30 Cal.App.4th 440 .... 15 I2 Marketing West, Inc. v. Sanyo Fisher (USA) Corp. 13 (t992) 6 Cal.App.4th 6a3 6 I4 McDowell v. Watson (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1155 .',,.9 15 I6 Miller v. Provost (t994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1703 .. 11 t7 Mitsui Man. Bankv. Super. Ct. 18 (1 989) 212 Cal. App.3d 726 .. 4 T9 Nagy v. Nagy (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1262 9 20 Nguyen v. Calhoun 2I (2003) I 05 Cal.App. th 428 T2 22 Oalrs Mgmt. Corp. v. Sup. Ct. 23 (2006) 1 45 Cal.App. th 453 8 24 People ex rel. Hqruis v. Rizzo (20 1 3) 21 4 Cal. App.4fh 921 ......,,.9 25 Perlas v. GMAC Mortg., LLC 26 (201 0) I 87 Cal.App.4th 429 8 27 Price v. Starbucks Corp. 28 (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1136 15 70000.3 633 / | 5261826.t VI Table of Authorities 1 Racine & Laramie, Ltd. v. Dept. of Parlcs & Rec (1992) II Cal.App .4th 1026 4 2 Ragland v. tlS. Bank, N.A. J (2012) 209 Cal\pp.4th I 82 .. 4 4 Robinson Helicopter Co. v. Dana Corp 5 (2004) 34 Cal4th979 .......... 5 6 ,Ross v. Creel Printing & Publ'g (2002) I 00 Cal.App.4th 73 6 3 7 Santa Anita Cos., Inc. v. Westfield Corp., Inc. 8 (2005) 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 728.... 7 9 Saterbakv. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 808 10 10 1l Schep v. Capital One, N.A. a (2017) l2 Cal.App.5th 1331, 1338 J t2 Secrest v. Securily Nat. Mortg. Loan Trust 13 2002-2 (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 544 .... t2 14 St. James Church v. Super. Ct. (19s5) 135 Cal.App.2d 352. 13,14 15 t6 Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153 6,8 t7 Teselle v. McLoughlin 18 (2009) 1 73 Cal.App.4th 156 13 t9 Wøgner v. Benson (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 27 4,8 20 Wilhelm v. Pray, Price, Williams & Russell 2t (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1324 7 22 Zumbrun v. Univ. of S. Cal. 23 (1972) 25 Cal.App.3d 1 9 24 Sr¡rn Srarurns 25 Bus. & Prof. Code l4 S 17204 26 l,14, California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") 15 27 28 70000.3 633 I | 526 t826.1 vll Table of Authorities 1 Civ. Code $ 338(d) .7 2 12 $ 16e8(c).......... ç 2922 T2 J 4 Code Civ. Proc. $ 33s.1................ ,4 5 $ 33s.1,338(c)(1) .4 $ 338(cX1) ,4 a 6 $ 430.10.... 11 7 10 8 Orupn AurHoRltlps 9 I Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (1Oth ed. 2005) Contracts, $ 218 ..,,' |2 i0 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, Pleading (4th ed.1997) $ 819 l3 11 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (4th ed.1997) Pleading, $ 817 10 t2 5 Witkin, California Procedure (2008) 7 13 l4 15 t6 17 18 t9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 2l 28 70000.3633It5261826 1 vlll Table of Authorities I NOTICE OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 2 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: J PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 2, 2020, at 3:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as 4 counsel may be heard in Departmenf 502 of the above-entitled Court, located at 1130 O Street, 5 Fresno, CA93T2I, a hearing will be held on the Demurrer of Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, 6 N.4., named here in its own capacity and as successor by April 27 ,2009 de jure merger with 7 Countrywide Bank, FSB (erroneously sued as Countrywide Bank, FSB) ("BANA") to the 8 Complaint filed by Plaintiff RICK LOYD ("Plaintiff'). 9 The Demurrer is brought under Code of Civil Procedure $ 430.10(e) in that neither the 10 Complaint nor any of its causes of action state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action 11 against BANA. T2 The Demurrer is based on this Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer, the accompanying 13 Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof the pleadings and records of the Couft, I4 the accompanying Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN") and any further oral and documentary 15 evidence that may be presented at the hearing. t6 17 DATED: March 16,2020 SEVERSON & WERSON A Professional Corporation 18 t9 By: 20 Stephen D. Britt 2l Attorneys for Defendant 22 N.4., BANK OF AMERICA, named here in its own capacity and as successor by April 27 ,2009 de jure z) merger with Countrywide Bank, FSB (erroneously sued 24 as Countryrvide Bank, FSB) 25 26 27 28 70000.3 633 I | 526 | 826.1 IX Notice of Demurrer to Plaintifls Cornplaint 1 DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 2 Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.4., named here in its own capacity and as successor J by April 27 ,2009 de jure merger with Countrywide Bank, FSB (erroneously sued as Countrywide 4 Bank, FSB) ("BANA") hereby demurs to the Complaint filed by Plaintiff RICK LOYD 5 ("Plaintiff'), on the following grounds: 6 DEMURRER TO FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 7 (Negligence) 8 The first cause of action for "Negligence" does not state facts sufflrcient to constitute a 9 cause of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430.10(e).) 10 DEMURRER TO SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 11 (Fraudulent Misrep resentation) t2 The second cause of action for "Fraudulent Misrepresentation" does not state facts 13 sufficient to constitute a cause of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430.10(e).) I4 DEMURRER TO THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 15 (Negligent Misrepresentation) t6 The third cause of action for'Negligent Misrepresentation" does not state facts suffrcient ll to constitute a cause of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430'10(e).) l8 DEMURRER TO FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION I9 (Fraudu lent Concealment) 20 The fourth cause of action for "Fraudulent Concealment" does not state facts suffrcient to 2l constitute a cause of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430.10(e).) 22 DEMURRER TO FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 23 (Fraudulent Promise Without Intention To Perform) 24 The fifth cause of action for "Fraudulent Promise Without Intention To Perform" does not 25 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430.10(e).) 26 DEMURRER TO SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 27 (Declaratory Relief) 28 The sixth cause of action for "Declaratory Relief' does not state facts sufficient to 70000.3 633 I | 5261826.1 X Demurrer to Plaintiff s Complaint I constitute a cause of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430.10(e).) 2 DEMURRER TO SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION J (Quiet Title) 4 The seventh cause of action to "Quiet Title" does not state facts sufficient to constitute a 5 cause of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430.10(e).) 6 DEMURRER TO EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 7 (Estoppel) 8 The sixth cause of action for "Estoppel" does not state facts sufftcient to constitute a cause 9 of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430.10(e).) 10 DEMURRER TO NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11 (Accounting) I2 The ninth cause of action for an "Accounting" does not state facts suffrcient to constitute a 13 cause of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430.10(e)') I4 DEMURRER TO TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 (Viotation of Bus. & Prof. Code S 17200' et seq.) I6 The tenth cause of action for "Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code $ 17200, et seq" does not t7 state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against BANA. (Code Civ. Proc., $ 430.10(e).) 18 19 DATED: March 16,2020 SEVERSON & WERSON A Professional 20 2l 22 Stephen D. Britt 23 Attorneys for Defendant 24 BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., named here in its own capacity and as successor by April 27 ,2009 de jure 25 merger with Countrlrvide Bank, FSB (erroneously sued 26 as Countrywide Bank, FSB) 27 28 70000.3 633 I I s26t 826.1 XI Demurrer to Plaintiff s Complaint 1 DECLARATION OF COMPLIANC4 WITH CODE CIV. PROC. Q 430.41 2 I, Stephen D. Britt, declare as follows: J 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the state of California. I am an attorney 4 employed by Severson & Werson, P.C., attorneys of record for Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, 5 N.A. ("BANA") in this action. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration 6 and if called as a witness, I could and would competently testi$ thereto. 7 2. On March 3,2020,I called and left a voice mail message for Adela Z.Ulloa, counsel I for Plaintiff. In my voicemail, I advised Ms. Ulloa of BANA's intention to file the instant 9 Demurrer, as well as the legal basis for the Demurrer. I requested Ms. Ulloa call me at her earliest 10 convenience so that we meet and confer, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure $ a31.aO(a). t1 3. On March 4,2020,I sent Ms. Ulloa an email communication with the legal basis for I2 the Demurrer. I once againrequested Ms. Ulloa contact me at her earliest convenience so that we i3 could complete the meet and confer requirements under Code Civ. Proc. $ a31.40(a). T4 4. On March 6,2020,I called and left a voice mail message for Ms. Ulloa, once again 15 advising her of BANA's intention to file the Demurrer, and requesting she call me at her earliest t6 convenience so that we could complete the meet and confer requirements, pursuant to Code Civ. 17 Proc. $ ß1.a0@). 18 5. On March I1,2020,I received an email from Ms. Ulloa discussing the issues raised 19 in the prior emails and voice mail messages. I responded to this email with my own email requesting 20 Ms. Ulloa's availability to discuss this response telephonically. After receiving no further response, 2l I called and left Ms. Ulloa a further voice mail message requesting she contact me at her earliest 22 convenience to discuss this matter. To date, I have yet to receive any response to these requests. 23 6. Therefore, notwithstanding my good faith efforts, the parties were unable to reach an 24 agreement as to how to resolve the issues described in this demurrer. 25 26 27 28 70000.3 633 / | 5261826.1 xll Declaration of Compliance with Code Civ. Proc. $ a30.al(a) I I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing 2 is true and correct. J Executed this 16th day of March,2020, at Irvine, California. 4 5 6 Stephen D. Britt 7 8 9 10 11 t2 13 I4 15 I6 t7 18 I9 20 2l 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 70000.3 633 I I s261826.1 xlll Declaration of Compliance with Code Civ. Proc. $ a30.a1(a) i MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 2 I. INTRODUCTION ^J In an effort to delay foreclosure proceedings not yet commenced against the subject 4 property, Plaintiff has filed the instant suit against his former loan servicer (BANA) and current 5 servicer, Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC ("Rushmore"). Each of Plaintiff s claims 6 against BANA are incurably defective for a number of reasons. Critically, nearly all of Plaintiff s 7 claims are based upon alleged statements made in or before 2008 prior to Plaintiffls admitted 8 acceptance of a loan modification agreement. All of those claims are thus t