MONICA RENE HALL, ET AL. VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC. , ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC03737    Hearing Date: December 17, 2019    Dept: 94

DEMURRER TO THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

TENTATIVE RULING: Defendants’ Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Plaintiffs “monica rene hall” and “david jr hall” shall be deemed vexatious litigants.

SUMMARY OF ACTION: This appears to be an action involving foreclosure on real property located at 4203 Norval Avenue, Quartz Hill, California 93536.

MOTION: Defendants demur to the First Amended Complaint in its entirety on the basis that it is barred by res judicata, and to the individual causes of action for failure to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action.

OPPOSITION: Plaintiffs filed a number of documents appearing to argue that res judicata does not apply. No grounds are intelligible.

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

The grounds for this action are unclear. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges causes of action for:

1. Violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933;

2. Violation of Section 11, 11(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933;

3. Violation of the Tender of Payment Act of 1933;

4. Violation of the California Home Owners Bill of Rights;

5. Violation of Section 13.1-522(C) of the Virginia Code;

6. Violation of Section 31-5606.05(a)(1)(B) of the D.C. Code;

7. Violation of Section 31-5606.05(c) of the D.C. Code;

8. Common Law Negligent Misrepresentation;

9. Common Law Fraud;

10. Aiding and Abetting Fraud;

11. Successor and Vicarious Liability;

12. Vicarious Liability for Wrongful Foreclosure for a Non Existing Trust;

13. Successor and Vicarious Liability for Wrongful Foreclosure After Receiving the Tender of Payment and Trespassing;

14. Successor and Vicarious Liability for Wrongful Foreclosure After Receiving the Tender of Payment;

15. Successor and Vicarious Liability for Wrongful Foreclosure & for Violations of the Infant Trust;

16. Successor and Vicarious Liability for Wrongful Foreclosure & for Violations of BOCIE Related to the Infant Trust;

17. Successor and Vicarious Liability for Wrongful Foreclosure & for Violations of the California Home Owners Bill of Rights;

18. Successor and Vicarious Liability for California’s Antitrust Statute – Bus. & Prof. Code 16720.

The action appears to involve a foreclosure stemming from Plaintiffs’ defaulted home loan.

1. Legal Standard

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of the pleading at issue as a matter of law. City of Chula Vista v. County of San Diego (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1713, 1719. A demurrer may be sustained where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. CCP § 430.10(e). The ultimate facts alleged in the complaint must be deemed true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403; see also Shields v. County of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 103, 133 (“On demurrer, pleadings are read liberally and allegations contained therein are assumed to be true.”) However, the Court does not assume the truth of allegations expressing conclusions of law or allegations contradicted by the exhibits to the complaint or by matters of which judicial notice may be taken. Vance v. Villa Park Mobilehome Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 698, 709.

Additionally, a special demurrer to a complaint may be brought on the ground the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, or unintelligible. CCP § 430.10(f); Beresford Neighborhood Assn. v. City of San Mateo (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1180, 1191. A demurrer based on uncertainty is disfavored and will be strictly construed even when the pleading is uncertain in some respects. Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616. A demurrer for uncertainty may be sustained when a defendant cannot reasonably determine to what he or she is required to respond. For example, when a plaintiff joins multiple causes of action as one, fails to properly identify each cause of action, or fails to state against which party each cause of action is asserted if there are multiple defendants, a complaint is uncertain. Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.

If the demurrer is sustained, plaintiff “has the burden of proving the possibility of cure by amendment.” Czajkowski v. Haskell & White, LLP (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 166, 173 (citing Grinzi v. San Diego Hospice Corp. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 72, 78-79.) Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successfully stating a cause of action. Schulz v. Neovi Data Corp. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 86, 92.

1. Discussion

Res Judicata

Defendants demur on the ground that the entirety of the FAC is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Plaintiffs filed a civil lawsuit against Defendants in this Court, case number MC027621, on December 28, 2017 (the “First Action”). (RJN Ex. 3.) The case was removed to federal court under case number 2:18-cv-00882, and dismissed with prejudice. (RJN Exh. 7.) On June 8, 2018, in dismissing the action, the federal court held that “[a]s far as the Court can tell, the crux of Plaintiffs' Complaint is that one or more of Defendants (it is not clear which) have wrongfully foreclosed and/or threatened to foreclose upon real property in Quartz Hill, California that Plaintiffs now occupy or once occupied.” (Id.) The Court noted that “it is impossible to tell from Plaintiffs' Complaint which Defendant(s) allegedly did what when, or how any of the Defendants' alleged conduct might be unlawful. This is because Plaintiffs' Complaint is essentially a stream-of-consciousness amalgamation of disparate grievances and conspiracy theories.” (Id.)

Three days later, on June 11, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a second action in federal court, naming only Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SJS”) (RJN Exh. 8.) SJS moved to dismiss, and the federal court dismissed Case 2:18-cv-05143 on September 10, 2018, noting that “[i]t is neither Defendant’s nor the Court's responsibility to ‘expend time and effort searching through large masses of conclusory, argumentative, evidentiary and other extraneous allegations in order to discover whether the essentials of claims asserted can be found in such a mélange.” (RJN Exh. 9.)

On August 27, 2019, on the matter of Defendants’ demurrer to the Complaint, this Court held that the elements of res judicata were satisfied. (8/27/2019 Minute Order.) Specifically, the Court held that

[t]he allegations in the Complaint are nearly identical to those set forth in Plaintiffs’ two earlier federal actions. (See RJN, Exhs. 3, 8.) In both those cases, the operative pleadings were dismissed as indecipherable. (Id. at Exhs. 5, 7, 9.) The dismissals were then upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (Id. at Exhs. 10-11.) A final determination on the merits, therefore, was made in both cases. Finally, Defendants were both named in the federal cases, either directly or as in the case of National Default Servicing Corp. by being in privity with Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. The Complaint, therefore, is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

(Id. p. 2.)

Plaintiff’s FAC now appears to contain allegations of securities fraud, arising from the “wrongful foreclosure, upon the Plaintiffs’ Property Home Land & Infants Trust . . .” (FAC 6:9-10.) Similar to the Complaint, the FAC’s allegations all arise from an allegedly wrongful or fraudulent foreclosure upon Plaintiffs’ property. As noted in the Court’s August 27, 2019, Order, “[t]he allegations in the Complaint are nearly identical to those set forth in Plaintiffs’ two earlier federal actions.” Although almost unintelligible, the allegations here allege again some form of fraudulent foreclosure upon Plaintiffs’ home. The FAC is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Failure to State Facts

Additionally, similar to the Complaint, other than that the FAC concerns Plaintiffs’ rights to the subject property, it is impossible possible to determine from the allegations the basis of Defendants’ alleged wrongdoing. The demurrer is sustained for failure to allege sufficient facts under CCP § 430.10(d).

Based on the foregoing, the demurrer to the FAC is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

Defendants also move for the Plaintiffs to be considered Vexatious Litigants pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7. As of today. Plaintiffs have filed the following six actions arising from the allegedly wrongful foreclosure:

1. Case MC026499 filed on August 15, 2016, removed to federal court as Case 2:16cv-06907;

2. Cases BH011320 and BH011321, filed on September 30, 2017;

3. Case MC027621 filed on December 28, 2017, removed to federal court as Case 2:18-cv-00882;

4. Case 2:18-cv-05143 filed on June 11, 2018.

5. Present Case 19STLC03737 filed on April 12, 2019.

Despite the numerous filings, Plaintiffs have seen their actions dismissed and denied. Notably, Plaintiffs have repeatedly filed the same action, often within days of the prior action being dismissed. Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7, “the court may, on its own motion or the motion of any party, enter a prefiling order which prohibits a vexatious litigant from filing any new litigation in the courts of this state in propria persona without first obtaining leave of the presiding justice or presiding judge of the court where the litigation is proposed to be filed. Disobedience of the order by a vexatious litigant may be punished as a contempt of court.”

A vexatious litigant is a person who “[a]fter a litigation has been finally determined against the person, repeatedly relitigates or attempts to relitigate, in propria persona, either (i) the validity of the determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined or (ii) the cause of action, claim, controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination against the same defendant or defendants as to whom the litigation was finally determined.” Such is the case with the Plaintiffs at hand. As noted above, Plaintiffs have impermissibly sought to relitigate numerous times the foreclosure on their former property.

Once more, Plaintiffs’ opposition to this request is devoid of authority or legal argument. Plaintiffs argue “[p]lease provide what Civil Code Procedure [sic] that presents [sic] the two from being fully represented and recognized as a woman and a man.” (Opp. 2:14-16.) Plaintiffs appear to understand that Defendants are challenging the fact that Plaintiffs are bringing this action together. Plaintiffs also summarily contend that “Plaintiffs have met the minimum requirements for causes of action provided the [sic] statements of facts thus proving that the Defendants have no defense and therefor the case must conclude with a summary judgement [sic] on behalf of the Plaintiffs.” (Opp. 2:3-4.) None of the arguments raised in this opposition are relevant to Plaintiffs’ repeated propria persona filing of unmeritorious and impermissible actions pertaining to the foreclosure on the subject property.

Pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 391.7, Plaintiffs “monica rene hall” and “david jr hall” shall be deemed vexatious litigants.