HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
FILED BY CITIMORTGAGE, INC.
* TENTATIVE RULING: *
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. The issue conference and trial dates are vacated. Defendant shall prepare a proposed judgment of dismissal, separate from any formal order on the motion, and shall submit that proposed judgment to plaintiffs’ counsel for approval as to form.
The basis for this ruling is as follows.
A. The Pleading Of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
A motion for summary adjudication “necessarily includes a test of the sufficiency of the complaint.” (American Airlines, Inc. v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 1110, 1117-18.) In this context, the courts consider the motion under the same standards applicable to a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Id.)
B. The First And Second Causes of Action.
The First and Second Causes of Action are for violation of the Homeowner Bill of Rights (“HBOR”). Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendant
Hearing Date
February 20, 2020
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
HEARING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION
FILED BY CITIMORTGAGE, INC.
* TENTATIVE RULING: *
Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted. The issue conference and trial dates are vacated. Defendant shall prepare a proposed judgment of dismissal, separate from any formal order on the motion, and shall submit that proposed judgment to plaintiffs’ counsel for approval as to form.
The basis for this ruling is as follows.
A. The Pleading Of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
A motion for summary adjudication “necessarily includes a test of the sufficiency of the complaint.” (American Airlines, Inc. v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 1110, 1117-18.) In this context, the courts consider the motion under the same standards applicable to a motion for judgment on the pleadings. (Id.)
B. The First And Second Causes of Action.
The First and Second Causes of Action are for violation of the Homeowner Bill of Rights (“HBOR”). Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendant