patricia coleman, Plaintiff, vs. quality loan service corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case No.: 19STCV27255
Hearing Date: November 5, 2020
Hearing Time: 2:00 p.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL;
DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Background
Plaintiff Patricia Coleman (“Coleman”) filed this wrongful foreclosure action on August 5, 2019. The operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) was filed on July 13, 2020 against Defendants Quality Loan Service Corporation (“Quality”) and Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (“Caliber”), and asserts causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) negligent misrepresentations, and (3) unfair business practices.
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
On September 15, 2020, the Court denied without prejudice the motion by Jarrod Y. Nakano of McFarlin LLP (“Counsel”) to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Patricia Coleman because neither the declaration nor the proposed order in support of the motion were complete. However, the Court c
Hearing Date
November 05, 2020
Type
Mortgage Foreclosure (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
patricia coleman, Plaintiff, vs. quality loan service corporation, et al., Defendants.
Case No.: 19STCV27255
Hearing Date: November 5, 2020
Hearing Time: 2:00 p.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL;
DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
Background
Plaintiff Patricia Coleman (“Coleman”) filed this wrongful foreclosure action on August 5, 2019. The operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) was filed on July 13, 2020 against Defendants Quality Loan Service Corporation (“Quality”) and Caliber Home Loans, Inc. (“Caliber”), and asserts causes of action for (1) fraud, (2) negligent misrepresentations, and (3) unfair business practices.
Motion to be Relieved as Counsel
On September 15, 2020, the Court denied without prejudice the motion by Jarrod Y. Nakano of McFarlin LLP (“Counsel”) to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Patricia Coleman because neither the declaration nor the proposed order in support of the motion were complete. However, the Court c