This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/28/2019 at 00:27:00 (UTC).

EDDIE TURNER VS U S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ET AL

Case Summary

On 11/16/2015 EDDIE TURNER filed a Property - Foreclosure lawsuit against U S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MICHAEL P. LINFIELD and MARY H. STROBEL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****0838

  • Filing Date:

    11/16/2015

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Foreclosure

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MICHAEL P. LINFIELD

MARY H. STROBEL

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

TURNER EDDIE

EDDIE TURNER IN CARE OF MARILYN HOLMES

Defendants and Respondents

ARIN CAPITAL & INVESTMENT CORP

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

LONE OAK FUND LLC

Defendant and Intervenor

LONE OAK FUND LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

HALL HOWARD D. ESQ.

ABB WAYNE M. ESQ.

GUSSNER J. WALTER ESQ.

GUSSNER J. WALTER

HALL HOWARD D.

ABB WAYNE M.

BARTELSTONE DAVID S.

Intervenor Attorney

CUNNINGHAM & TREADWELL

 

Court Documents

Other -

1/10/2019: Other -

Certificate of Mailing for

1/18/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Certificate of Mailing for

3/8/2019: Certificate of Mailing for

Motion for Leave to Intervene

6/25/2019: Motion for Leave to Intervene

Other -

6/25/2019: Other -

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

12/9/2015: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: 1. CANCELATION OF INSTRUMENT 2. QUIET TITLE 3. SLANDER OF TITLE 4. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

1/22/2016: 1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: 1. CANCELATION OF INSTRUMENT 2. QUIET TITLE 3. SLANDER OF TITLE 4. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

2/16/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

2/17/2016: PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

DEFENDANTS U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF LEHMAN XS TRUST MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-7N'S AND NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC'S ANSWER TO FIRST AM

2/22/2016: DEFENDANTS U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATEHOLDERS OF LEHMAN XS TRUST MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-7N'S AND NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC'S ANSWER TO FIRST AM

PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER OF ARIN CAPITAL & INVESTMENT CORP TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

4/29/2016: PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER OF ARIN CAPITAL & INVESTMENT CORP TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

DECLARATION OF DAVID S. BARTELSTONE IN SUPPORT OF LONE OAK FUND, LLC'S MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND FILE ANSWER-IN-INTERVENTION

8/4/2016: DECLARATION OF DAVID S. BARTELSTONE IN SUPPORT OF LONE OAK FUND, LLC'S MOTION FOR ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND FILE ANSWER-IN-INTERVENTION

ANSWER-IN-INTERVENTION OF LONE OAK FUND, LLC, TO AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

8/4/2016: ANSWER-IN-INTERVENTION OF LONE OAK FUND, LLC, TO AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Minute Order

8/5/2016: Minute Order

TEN-X, LLC'S OBJECTIONS TO EDDIE TURNER'S CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION, AND THINGS AT TRIAL OR HEARING AND DECLAR

8/25/2016: TEN-X, LLC'S OBJECTIONS TO EDDIE TURNER'S CIVIL SUBPOENA (DUCES TECUM) FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS, ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION, AND THINGS AT TRIAL OR HEARING AND DECLAR

NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF COURT-ORDERED SANCTIONS

8/30/2016: NOTICE OF DEPOSIT OF COURT-ORDERED SANCTIONS

REQUEST FOR TELEPHONE APPEARANCE

3/9/2017: REQUEST FOR TELEPHONE APPEARANCE

Minute Order

3/23/2017: Minute Order

91 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/26/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 34; Status Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Status Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Proof of Service by Mail; Filed by Eddie Turner (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by Eddie Turner (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Motion for Leave to Intervene; Filed by Eddie Turner (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Notice (and Motion to Compel Responses for Discovery); Filed by Eddie Turner (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/25/2019
  • Answer-in-Intervention of the Eddie Turner Trust; Filed by Eddie Turner (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/12/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Arin Capital & Investment Corp (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by Nationstar Mortgage (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Case Management Statement; Filed by U.S. Bank National Association (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
182 More Docket Entries
  • 12/03/2015
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2015
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 82; Ex-Parte Proceedings (Exparte proceeding; Denied) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2015
  • EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS IN SUPPORT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2015
  • Minute order entered: 2015-11-20 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2015
  • Ex-Parte Application; Filed by Eddie Turner (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/20/2015
  • Minute Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • DECLARATION OF MAILING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF: CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENT QUIET TITLE SLANDER OF TITLE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/16/2015
  • Complaint; Filed by Eddie Turner (Plaintiff); Eddie Turner in Care of Marilyn Holmes (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC600838    Hearing Date: January 07, 2020    Dept: 34

SUBJECT: (1) Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative Summary Adjudication

Moving Party: Defendant U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for the Certificateholders of Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7N (erroneously sued as U.S. Bank National Association)

Resp. Party: Eddie Turner

SUBJECT: (2) Joinder to Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the alternative Summary Adjudication

Moving Party: Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC (erroneously sued as Nationstar Mortgage)

Resp. Party: Eddie Turner

The Court GRANTS U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment.

The Court GRANTS Nationstar’s joinder to the motion for summary judgment.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

I. Plaintiff’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment was filed on 12/31/2019 and is untimely.

This is not the first time that Plaintiff has filed an untimely opposition. On October 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed an untimely Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Deem Requests for Admissions Admitted; on November 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed an untimely Reply to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. Both times the Court admonished Plaintiff for his untimely submissions; both times the Court nonetheless considered his submissions. (See 10/8/2019 Minute Order and 11/15/2019 Minute Order.)

Despite Plaintiff’s repeated untimely submissions, the Court will consider the merits of Plaintiff’s untimely opposition to these Motions for Summary Judgment. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300; Kapitanski v. Von's Grocery Co. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32.)

II. Plaintiff’s responses to the separate statement of material facts do not point to any evidence of his own to contradict the Defendants’ material facts. In response to U.S. Bank’s material fact #31, Plaintiff merely writes “fuck you!”. (See Plaintiff’s “Opposition and Responses to Undisputed Immaterial Facts,” filed 12/31/2019.) Such lack of civility might well be sanctionable; however, since the Court is dismissing the case today by granting the Motions for Summary Judgment, the Court feels that any further sanctions would be punitive and hence should not be imposed.

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Eddie Turner, in propria persona, commenced this complaint on November 16, 2015 against Defendants U.S. Bank National Association, Nationstar Mortgage, and Arin Capital & Investment Corp.

This is an action premised on fraud. Plaintiff Eddie Turner alleges that two forged Deeds of Trust were recorded against his home in 2007. (FAC, 2:1-12.) Plaintiff claims he reported the crime to law officials, which determined that the 2007 Deeds of Trust were “generated by fraud and are fraudulent.” (FAC, 2:13-25.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants U.S. Bank and Nationstar Mortgage initiated foreclosure proceedings against the subject property in 2014, with U.S. Bank eventually buying the property and a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale being recorded against the property on 3/12/15 based on the 2007 Deeds of Trust. (FAC, 3:1-21.) It is alleged that Defendant Arin Capital and Investment Corp. subsequently purchased the home and is currently in possession of the home. (FAC, 3:24-25.) Plaintiff claims U.S. Bank “had no legal right to grant the home to Arin Capital” based on the forged Deeds of Trust. (FAC, 3:25.)

On November 20, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte request for a TRO, finding that an unlawful detainer judgment was entered in late September 2015 and that Plaintiff has been aware of the allegedly fraudulent conduct concerning his property since at least 2011. (11/16/15 Minute Order.) The Court also concluded Plaintiff failed to provide evidence to support a finding that he has a likelihood of success on the merits.

The Court again denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a TRO on December 3, 2015.

Plaintiff filed his FAC on January 20, 2016, and another FAC on January 22, 2016 which includes exhibits that were not attached to the previous filing. The Court deems the FAC filed on January 22, 2016 as the operative pleading. The FAC asserts causes of action for: (1) cancellation of instrument; (2) quiet title; (3) slander of title; and (4) IIED.

On February 14, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to advance the hearing and immediate hear the motion to expunge lis pendens.

On May 12, 2016, the Court overruled Arin Capital & Investment Corp.’s demurrer to the FAC and granted Arin Capital & Investment Corp.’s motion to expunge lis pendens.

On August 8, 2016, the Court denied Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and U.S. Bank National Association’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition.

On February 1, 2017, the Court denied Nationstar Mortgage LLC and U.S. Bank National Association’s joint motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On March 23, 2018, Plaintiff indicated to the Court that he is currently incarcerated, but will be released by December 2018 and the Court stayed the case until January 18, 2019.

On July 23, 2019, the Court denied Trustee Eddie Turner, in propria persona, on behalf of Eddie Turner Trust – 2009, UDT Dated May 22, 2009’s motion to intervene and file answer-in intervention.

On August 27, 2019, the Court denied Trustee Eddie Turner, in propria persona, on behalf of Eddie Turner Trust – 2009, UDT Dated May 22, 2009’s motion for reconsideration.

On October 9, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted.

On November 15, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s decision to grant the motion to deem requests for admissions admitted.

On September 30, 2019, Defendant U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee for the Certificateholders of Lehman XS Trust Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-7N (“U.S. Bank”) filed the instant motion for summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication against Plaintiff.

On October 3, 2019, Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC (“Nationstar”) filed the instant joinder to Defendant U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment, or alternatively, summary adjudication against Plaintiff.

ANALYSIS:

A. Requests for Judicial Notice

The court may take judicial notice of “[r]ecords of (1) any court of this state or (2) any court of record of the United States or of any state of the United States,” and “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Evid. Code § 452, subds. (d), and (h).)

1. Defendants’ Requests for Judicial Notice

U.S. Bank requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents:

1. Exhibit 1: Deed of Trust, recorded on January 26, 2005 as Document No. 05 0187799.

2. Exhibit 2: Deed of Trust, recorded on September 1, 2005, as Document No. 05 2115405.

3. Exhibit 3: Deed of Trust, recorded on March 30, 2007, as Document No. 20070745400.

4. Exhibit 4: Deed of Trust and Assignment of Rents, recorded on March 30,2007, as Document No. 20070745401.

5. Exhibit 5: Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated January 11, 2008.

6. Exhibit 6: Order Approving the Acquisition of a Savings Association and Other Nonbanking Activities, dated June 5, 2008.

7. Exhibit 7: Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust, recorded on May 5, 2008, as Document No. 20080786188.

8. Exhibit 8: Notice of Trustee's Sale, recorded on August 11, 2008 as Document No. 20081435696.

9. Exhibit 9: Voluntary Petition - Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, filed on May 4, 2009, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Central District of California (Case No. 2:09-bk-20612-ER).

10. Exhibit 10: Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust ($1,000,000 loan), recorded on April 1, 2010, as Document No. 20100442572.

11. Exhibit 11: Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay, filed on April 21, 2010, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Central District of California (Case No. 2:09-bk-20612-ER).

12. Exhibit 12: Order Granting Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay, filed on May 20, 2010, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Central District of California (Case No. 2:09-bk-20612-ER).

13. Exhibit 13: Discharge of Debtor, filed on January 6, 2011, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Central District of California (Case No. 2:09-bk-20612-ER).

14. Exhibit 14: Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust, recorded on January 31, 2011, as Document No. 20110166193.

15. Exhibit 15: Second Amended Complaint for Actual Fraud and other Counts, filed on October 22, 2012, in the case entitled Eddie Turner v. Bank of America Corporation, et al. Case No. 14 GC049341, Los Angeles County Superior Court - Pasadena Courthouse.

16. Exhibit 16: Judgment, filed on January 14, 2013, in the case entitled Eddie Turner v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No. GC049341, Los Angeles County Superior Court- Pasadena Courthouse.

17. Exhibit 17: Unpublished Decision of the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District) in the case of Eddie Turner v. Bank of America Corporation, et al, (Appellate Case No. B247883).

18. Exhibit 18: Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust, recorded on July 24, 2014 as Document No. 20140764837.

19. Exhibit 19: Notice of Trustee's Sale, recorded on January 6, 2015 as Document No. 20150012546.

20. Exhibit 20: Trustee's Deed Upon Sale, recorded on March 12, 2015 as Document No. 20150266990.

21. Exhibit 21: Grant Deed, recorded on April 29, 2015, as Document No. 20150485141.

22. Exhibit 22: Grant Deed, recorded on August 5, 2016 as Document No. 20160929087.

23. Exhibit 23: Notice of Pendency of Action, recorded on May 2, 2017 as Document No. 20170485974.

24. Exhibit 24: First Amended Complaint filed on January 22, 2016, in the instant case entitled Eddie Turner v. U.S. Bank, et al. Case No. BC600838, Los Angeles County Superior Court – Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

25. Exhibit 25: Felony Complaint for Arrest Warrant filed on May 1, 2014, in the case entitled People of the State of California v. Eddie NMN Turner, Case No. BA424226,Los Angeles County Superior Court.

26. Exhibit 26: Jury Verdict filed on March 23, 2016, in the case entitled People of the State of California v. Eddie NMN Turner, Case No. BA424226, Los Angeles County Superior Court.

27. Exhibit 27: Minute Order re: Verdict filed on April 4, 2016, in the case entitled People of the State of California v. Eddie NMN Turner, Case No. BA424226, Los Angeles County Superior Court.

28. Exhibit 28: Abstract of Judgment - Prison Commitment, filed on May 26, 2016, in the case entitled People of the State of California v. Eddie NMN Turner, Case No. BA424226, Los Angeles 22 County Superior Court.

29. Exhibit 29: Unpublished Decision of the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District) in the case of People of the State of California v. Eddie Turner (Appellate Case No. B272452).

30. Exhibit 30: Motion for Reconsideration filed on August 2, 2019, in the instant case entitled Eddie Turner v. U.S. Bank, et al, Case No. BC600838, Los Angeles County Superior Court - Stanley Mosk Courthouse.

The Court GRANTS U.S. Bank’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 1-23, 25-29. The Court DENIES U.S. Bank’s request for judicial notice as to Exhibits 24 and 30 as superfluous. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.110(d).) Any party that wishes to draw the Court’s attention to a matter filed in this action may simply cite directly to the document by execution and filing date. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(d).)

2. Defendants’ Supplemental Requests for Judicial Notice

On January 2, 2020, Defendants filed a Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice, asking that this Court take judicial notice of Defendant’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted, and the Court’s Order granting that motion.

The Court DENIES this Request for Judicial Notice as unneeded; it is not necessary to take judicial notice of documents filed in the instant lawsuit. Such documents can simply be referenced.

3. Plaintiff’s Requests for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff Eddie Turner requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents:

1. Exhibit A: Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings on Appeal, LASC BA424226-01, March 8, 2016.

2. Exhibit B: People’s Exhibit 21D from case LASC BA424226-01

3. Exhibit C: Stewart Title Search for APN 5857 015 001

4. Exhibit D: Records subpoenaed from Nationstar Mortgage LLC. (See Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice.)

Exhibit A appears to be volume 3 of an 8-volume transcript of the proceedings in case LASC BA424226-01. The Court takes judicial notice that hearings occurred on that date, but does not take judicial notice of the truth of any statements made at that hearing. The Court grants Plaintiff’s request to take judicial notice of Exhibits B and D. The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to take judicial notice of Exhibit C.

B. Legal Standard

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 843.) “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1110, 1119.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 463, 467.)

“When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, 159 Cal. App. 4th at 467; Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

C. Discussion

U.S. Bank and Nationstar (“Defendants”) assert that Plaintiff’s claims, that two mortgage loans and deeds of trust obtained for the refinancing of the property at 2436 Altadena Drive, Altadena, CA 91001 were obtained without his knowledge and contained his forged signatures, have “previously been tried in both the civil court in a case entitled Eddie Turner v. Eddie Turner v. Bank of America, et al. (Case No. GC049341 - Los Angeles Superior Court - Pasadena Branch) and in the criminal court in the case entitled People of the State of California v. Turner (Case No. BA424226 - Los Angeles Superior Court).” (U.S. Bank’s Motion, p. 1:3-10.) Defendants assert that this instant lawsuit, which is a rehash of previously litigated claims rejected by trial and appellate courts, was filed “after judgment for defendants in the civil court (later affirmed by the Court of Appeal) and a conviction for mortgage fraud, grand theft and perjury, among other crimes relating to the loans and Subject Property (later affirmed by the Court of Appeal).” (Id. at p. 1:10-14.) Therefore, Defendants argue, Plaintiff’s “claims are barred by the doctrines of judicial estoppel, claim preclusion and issue preclusion, and are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.” (Id. at p. 1:14-16.)

“The doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion dictates that in ordinary circumstances a final judgment on the merits prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them. [Citation.] The doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion prevents “the relitigation of issues argued and decided in a previous case, even if the second suit raises different causes of action.” [Citation.] “Under issue preclusion, the prior judgment conclusively resolves an issue actually litigated and determined in the first action.” [Citation.]” (Wassmann v. South Orange County Community College District (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 825, 844.)

“The prerequisite elements for applying the doctrine to either an entire cause of action or one or more issues are the same: (1) A claim or issue raised in the present action is identical to a claim or issue litigated in a prior proceeding; (2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom the doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding. [Citations.]” (People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 253.)

“To determine whether two proceedings involve identical causes of action for purposes of claim preclusion, California courts have “consistently applied the ‘primary rights' theory.” [Citation.]” (Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 797.) “The cause of action is the right to obtain redress for a harm suffered, regardless of the specific remedy sought or the legal theory (common law or statutory) advanced.” (Id. at 798.) “‘[T]he ‘cause of action’ is based upon the harm suffered, as opposed to the particular theory asserted by the litigant. [Citation.] Even where there are multiple legal theories upon which recovery might be predicated, one injury gives rise to only one claim for relief. ‘Hence a judgment for the defendant is a bar to a subsequent action by the plaintiff based on the same injury to the same right, even though he presents a different legal ground for relief.’ [Citations.]” Thus, under the primary rights theory, the determinative factor is the harm suffered.” (Id.)

1. Claim Preclusion

Defendants argue that each of Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred by claim preclusion. (U.S. Bank Motion, p. 8:5-6.) First, Defendants assert that “each cause of action in this case is based upon the same primary right litigated in Turner’s First Civil Action” because like this action, the first civil action “was an attempt, by way of fraud claims, to quiet title and assert the invalidity of the 2007 Loans and Deeds of Trust.” (Id. at p. 8:7-10.) Defendants point to Plaintiff’s verified second amended complaint in the first civil action which alleges “[o]n or about March 2007, Gleason, Stewart, and Shay forged Plaintiff’s signature on a deed of trust notarized by Ms. Stewart” (RJN, Ex. 15, ¶ 14) and in that action, Plaintiff requests “cancellation of the 2007 mortgage instrument fraudulently placed on the real property located at 2436 North Altadena Drive, Altadena, CA 91001” (RJN, Ex. 15, Prayer for Relief, ¶ 5). In this action’s FAC, Plaintiff alleges that he “did not have knowledge of and did not sign 2007 Deeds of Trust (County of Los Angeles Recorded Instrument Numbers #20070745400 & #20070745401)” and “both instruments are forgeries, rendering them VOID . . . .” (FAC, p. 2:2-6.) In both the first civil action, that was commenced on April 26, 2012, and this civil action that is presently before the Court, Plaintiff alleges that he is harmed by fraudulent loan documents regarding the same property. The Court finds that Defendants have presented evidence that claims raised in the present action are identical to the claims issued in the prior civil proceeding.

Second, Defendants argue that the parties to the prior action are present in this action. Defendants assert that Plaintiff was the plaintiff in the first civil action and Bank of America was the defendant in the first civil action. (Motion, p. 8:18-19.) Defendants assert that “U.S. Bank is in privity with Bank of America because it is the assignee of both the 2007 Loans and Deeds of Trust” and U.S. Bank “then foreclosed on the $1,000.00 note and purchased the Subject Property at its own foreclosure sale.” (Id. at p. 8:19-21; RJN Ex. 14, Corporation Assignment of Deed].) Defendants assert that “U.S. Bank’s ownership of the Subject Property derived completely from the disputed 2007 Deeds of Trust” and “the rights and obligations that U.S. Bank was enforcing via the foreclosure action against Turner were the very same rights and obligations Bank of America could have enforced against him.” (Id. at pp. 8:24-9:1.) Therefore, Defendants argue “Bank of America and U.S. Bank stood in contractual privity with each other” and “as an assignee of the 2007 Deeds of Trust, U.S. Bank was simply a stand-in for Bank of America.” (Id. at p. 9:1-2.)

The court in Cal Sierra Development, Inc. v. George Reed, Inc. (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 663, 672-673 explains the following concept of privity:

“ ‘[T]o maintain the stability of judgments, insure expeditious trials,’ prevent vexatious litigation, and ‘to serve the ends of justice,’ courts are expanding the concept of privity beyond the classical definition to relationships ‘sufficiently close to afford application of the principle of preclusion.’ [Citation.] ‘As applied to questions of preclusion, privity requires the sharing of “an identity or community of interest,” with “adequate representation” of that interest in the first suit, and circumstances such that the nonparty “should reasonably have expected to be bound” by the first suit. [Citation.] A nonparty alleged to be in privity must have an interest so similar to the party’s interest that the party acted as the nonparty’s “ ‘ “virtual representative” ’ ” in the first action. [Citation.]’ [Citation.] . . .

Furthermore, privity appertains “against one who did not actually appear in the prior action . . . where the unsuccessful party in the first action might fairly be treated as acting in a representative capacity for a nonparty.” [Citation.]’ [Citation].”

The prior civil action was brought against Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Countrywide Home Loans, Jefferey Gleason, Landsafe, and Recon Trust. The FAC in this action is brought by Plaintiff Turner against Defendants U.S. Bank, Nationstar, and Arin Capital & Investment Corp. In this action, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant U.S. Bank . . . [is] a national banking corporation and legal beneficiary of the deeds recorded in 2007.” (FAC, p. 1:16-18.) In this action, Plaintiff alleges that “Defendant Nationstar . . . is a national mortgage corporation and mortgage servicer.” (Id. at p. 1:19-20.) Plaintiff also alleges that “in 2014, U.S. Bank with the assistance of Nationstar Mortgage initiated foreclosure proceedings against the Plaintiff’s home, according to terms referenced in Instrument No. 20070745400, recorded in 2007 . . . .” (Id. at p. 3:1-4.) Bank of America assigned all of its right, title, and interest in the 2007 Deed of Trust (the $1,000,000.00 loan) to U.S. Bank and a Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded on April 1, 2010. (RJN, Ex. 10.) Bank of America also assigned all of its right, title, and interest in the junior 2007 Deed of Trust (the $218,000.00 loan) to U.S. Bank and a Corporation of Assignment Deed of Trust was recorded on January 31, 2011. (RJN, Ex. 14.)

Although U.S. Bank and Nationstar were not specifically named defendants in the prior action, they presented sufficient evidence that they act in privity with the Bank of America, a party to the prior civil action as Bank of America acted in representative capacity for these defendants. The Court finds that Defendants have presented evidence that the parties to the FAC in this action were in privity with the parties to the prior civil action.

Third, Defendants argue that “there was a final judgment on the merits in the First Civil Action, which was upheld on appeal.” (Motion, p. 9:3-4.) The first civil action resulted in dismissal of the entire case with prejudice after the Court sustained the demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend. (RJN, Ex. 16, Judgment.) The trial court’s decision sustaining the demurrer and entering judgment against Plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Appeal of the State of California in case number B247883. (RJN, Ex. 17, Unpublished Decision of the California Court of Appeal (Second Appellate District), Turner v. Bank of America, et al.) Therefore, the Court finds that Defendants have provided evidence that the first civil action resulted in a final judgment on the merits.

The Court finds that the doctrine of claim preclusion bars Plaintiff’s claims in the present action as (1) a claim in the present action is identical to a claim litigated in a prior proceeding; (2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom the doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding. (See People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 253.)

Plaintiff has opposed this motion. However, Plaintiff’s opposition and responsive separate statement cite to no evidence to contradict any of Defendants’ material facts. Therefore, Plaintiff has not met his burden to demonstrate that a triable issue of material fact exists to prevent the doctrine of claim preclusion from applying.

Although not necessary for the Court’s decision today, the Court also notes that on October 9, 2019, the Court granted Nationstar’s Motion to Deem Requests for Admission Admitted. On November 15, 2019, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of that order. Even if the Court were not to have found claim preclusion, Plaintiff’s admissions in these two dozen Requests for Admission would require the Court to grant the Motion for Summary Judgment. Among other admissions, Plaintiff has admitted that:

o he signed the deed of trust at issue in this case (RFA 4)

o the loan was not forged (RFA 5)

o the loan was valid (RFA 19)

o there are no facts to support this current complaint (RFA 21)

Plaintiff also admitted that his first civil action raised issues identical to those raised in this action (RFA 3.)

The Court GRANTS Defendant U.S. Bank’s motion for summary judgment and Defendant Nationstar’s joinder to the motion for summary judgment.

Case Number: BC600838    Hearing Date: November 15, 2019    Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Motion for Reconsideration

Moving Party: Plaintiff Eddie Turner

Resp. Party: Defendant Nationstar Mortgage

The motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

The request for judicial notice is GRANTED.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS:

On or about November 8, 2019, the Court posted its Tentative Decision, which was to deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. One of the reasons cited in the tentative was that Plaintiff had not presented any new facts as required by CCP § 1008.

On November 12, 2019, Plaintiff filed a reply and request for judicial notice. That Reply has a section entitled “New Facts” and was accompanied by a Request for Judicial Notice of various deeds. The hearing on this motion is set for November 15, 2019, thus the reply and request for judicial notice are untimely.

However, the Court in its discretion will consider the merits of the reply and request for judicial notice. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300; Kapitanski v. Von's Grocery Co. (1983) 146 Cal.App.3d 29, 32.)

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiff Eddie Turner, in propria persona, commenced this complaint on November 16, 2015 against Defendants U.S. Bank National Association, Nationstar Mortgage, and Arin Capital & Investment Corp.

This is an action premised on fraud. Plaintiff Eddie Turner alleges that two forged Deeds of Trust were recorded against his home in 2007. (FAC, 2:1-12.) Plaintiff claims he reported the crime to law officials, which determined that the 2007 Deeds of Trust were “generated by fraud and are fraudulent.” (FAC, 2:13-25.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants U.S. Bank and Nationstar Mortgage initiated foreclosure proceedings against the subject property in 2014, with U.S. Bank eventually buying the property and a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale being recorded against the property on 3/12/15 based on the 2007 Deeds of Trust. (FAC, 3:1-21.) It is alleged that Defendant Arin Capital and Investment Corp. subsequently purchased the home and is currently in possession of the home. (FAC, 3:24-25.) Plaintiff claims U.S. Bank “had no legal right to grant the home to Arin Capital” based on the forged Deeds of Trust. (FAC, 3:25.)

On November 20, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte request for a TRO, finding that an unlawful detainer judgment was entered in late September 2015 and that Plaintiff has been aware of the allegedly fraudulent conduct concerning his property since at least 2011. (11/16/15 Minute Order.) The Court also concluded Plaintiff failed to provide evidence to support a finding that he has a likelihood of success on the merits.

The Court again denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application for a TRO on December 3, 2015.

Plaintiff filed his FAC on January 20, 2016, and another FAC on January 22, 2016 which includes exhibits that were not attached to the previous filing. The Court deems the FAC filed on January 22, 2016 as the operative pleading. The FAC asserts causes of action for: (1) cancellation of instrument; (2) quiet title; (3) slander of title; and (4) IIED.

On February 14, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application to advance the hearing and immediate hear the motion to expunge lis pendens.

On May 12, 2016, the Court overruled Arin Capital & Investment Corp.’s demurrer to the FAC and granted Arin Capital & Investment Corp.’s motion to expunge lis pendens.

On August 8, 2016, the Court denied Nationstar Mortgage, LLC and U.S. Bank National Association’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition.

On February 1, 2017, the Court denied Nationstar Mortgage LLC and U.S. Bank National Association’s joint motion for judgment on the pleadings.

On March 23, 2018, Plaintiff indicated to the Court that he is currently incarcerated, but will be released by December 2018 and the Court stayed the case until January 18, 2019.

On July 23, 2019, the Court denied Trustee Eddie Turner, in propria persona, on behalf of Eddie Turner Trust – 2009, UDT Dated May 22, 2009’s motion to intervene and file answer-in intervention.

On August 27, 2019, the Court denied Trustee Eddie Turner, in propria persona, on behalf of Eddie Turner Trust – 2009, UDT Dated May 22, 2009’s motion for reconsideration.

On October 9, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC’s motion to deem requests for admissions admitted.

On October 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for reconsideration.

ANALYSIS:

A. Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1008(a):

“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Code of Civ. Proc., §1008(a).)

As stated by the court in Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal. App. 4th 1494, 1499, a court acts in excess of jurisdiction when it grants a motion to reconsider that is not based upon “new or different facts, circumstances or law.” There is a strict requirement of diligence, meaning the moving party must present a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence or different facts earlier. (Garcia v. Hejmadi (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 674, 690.)

B. Request for Judicial Notice

Under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c), a court may take judicial notice of “official acts of the acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States.”

Evidence Code section 453 provides that “[t]he trial court shall take judicial notice of any matter specified in Section 452 if a party requests it and (a) [g]ives each adverse party sufficient notice of the request, through the pleadings or otherwise, to enable such adverse party to prepare to meet the request; and (b) [f]urnishes the court with sufficient information to enable it to take judicial notice of the matter.”

California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1306(c) provides that a party requesting judicial notice of material under Evidence Code sections 452 or 453 must provide the court and each party a copy of the material.

Plaintiff requests that the Court take judicial notice of the following documents:

· Exhibit A: a true and correct copy of a Grant Deed recorded on January 26, 2007 in the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office as Instrument No. 2005 018 7798.

· Exhibit B: a true and correct copy of a Trust Transfer Deed recorded on July 21st, 2009 in the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office as Instrument No. 2009 110 4423.

· Exhibit C: a true and correct copy of a Trustee's Deed Upon Sale recorded on March 12th, 2015 in the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office as Instrument No. 2015 026 6690.

· Exhibit D: a true and correct copy of a Grant Deed recorded on April 29th, 2015 in the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office as Instrument No. 2015 048 5141.

· Exhibit E: a true and correct copy of a Grant Deed recorded on August 8th, 2016 in the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office as Instrument No. 2016 092 9087.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of Exhs. A-E.

C. Discussion

The basis for Plaintiff Turner’s motion is not completely clear. He appears to be moving for reconsideration of the Court’s decision to deem matters admitted due to his belief that the Court demonstrated prejudice and bias. (Motion, p. 2:12-15.) As an alternative to granting a motion to deem matters admitted, Plaintiff Turner moves the Court to grant a motion to compel. (Id. at p. 2:17.) Plaintiff Turner states that “both the Defendants and the Court were serving multiple court documents to multiple addresses instead of Plaintiff Turner’s updated mailing address” which “hindered Plaintiff Turner from timely responding.” (Id. at p. 7:2-5.)

In opposition, Defendant argues that this motion should be denied for three reasons. First, Defendant argues that the motion is defective because Plaintiff failed to include a notice of motion identifying the time and place of the hearing on the motion. (Opp., p. 2:26-27.) Second, Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not serve the motion at least 16 court days before the hearing and that “Plaintiff’s failure to follow the Rules of Court has unfairly limited the time which Nationstar has to oppose the Motion.” (Id. at pp. 2:28-3:3.) Third, besides the lack of notice and improper service, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s motion is without merit because Plaintiff has not made the jurisdictionally required showing necessary for reconsideration. (Id. at p. 4:1-2.) Defendant maintains that Plaintiff has failed to set forth any new or different facts, circumstances or law, for the Court to determine this reconsideration request. (Id. at p. 5:13-14, 5:26-27.)

Despite the procedural deficiencies of Mr. Turner’s motion for reconsideration, the Court will reach the merits of the motion.

a. Plaintiff has Not Presented Any New Facts; He has Not Shown why any Purported New Facts could not have been Presented Earlier

Plaintiff Turner’s motion must be denied; Mr. Turner has not demonstrated that there were new facts or circumstances that warrant vacating the Court’s October 9, 2019 order. (See Garcia, 58 Cal. App. 4th at 690.)

In Plaintiff’s late-filed reply, Plaintiff identifies the following “new facts”:

“SUBJECT PROPERTY is a unique property, which consist of 2 (two) separate parcels (APN 5857-015-011 “THE 1ST PARCEL” & APN 5857-015- 001 “THE 2nd PARCEL), which parcels have 2 (two) separate legal descriptions[:]

• In 2005, Plaintiff Turner was granted title to THE 2nd PARCEL, County Instrument No. 2005 018 7798 (Exhibit A)

• In 2007, Void DOT 2007 074 5400 was never recorded against THE 2nd PARCEL

• In 2009, Title was granted to: Eddie Turner, Trustee of the Eddie Turner Trust – 2009, UDT dated May 22, 2009, County Instrument No. 2009 110 4423 (Exhibit B)

• A Notice of Default (NOD) was never recorded against THE 2nd PARCEL

• A Notice of Sale (NOS) was never recorded against THE 2nd PARCEL

• THE 2nd PARCEL was never foreclosed upon or auctioned off

• In 2015, on March 12th, Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale was illegally recorded against THE 2nd PARCEL, County Instrument No. 2015 026 6990 (Exhibit C)

• In 2015, on April 29th, Grant Deed, County Instrument No. 2015 048 30 5141, was recorded illegally transferring title out of Plaintiff’s Tuner’s name to U.S. Bank N.A. by Nationstar, as their attorney in fact, constituting a new & continuous mortgage fraud (exhibit D)

• In 2016, Grant Deed, County Instrument No. 2016 092 9087, was recorded illegally transferring title to Marcus Jackson Williams and Glory Star Curtis by Arin Capital & Investment Corp., constituting another new & continuous mortgage fraud (Exhibit E)

• CC §2924g

(b) When the property consists of several known lots or parcels, they shall be sold separately unless the deed of trust or mortgage provides otherwise. When a portion of the property is claimed by a third person, who requires it to be sold separately, the portion subject to the claim may be thus sold. The trustor, if present at the sale, may also, unless the deed of trust or mortgage otherwise provides, direct the order in which property shall be sold, when the property consists of several known lots or parcels which may be sold to advantage separately, and the trustee shall follow that direction. After sufficient property has been sold to satisfy the indebtedness, no more can be sold.

• Trustee Sale No. 00000004720350, supposedly conducted on 02/19/2015, documented by County Instrument No. 20150266990 is out of compliance with CC §2924g(b) and is VOID

• Country Instrument No’s 2015 026 6990, 2015 048 5141, 2016 092 9087, etcetera all contain fraud (an illegal transfer of title) and are void.” (Reply, pp. 3:19-4:20.)

Plaintiff argues that “these new facts, which involves illegal actions by the Defendants, also makes it impossible for the Defendants to prevail on Summary Judgment.” (Reply, p. 4:21-23.)

Plaintiff Turner has not satisfied the requirement of diligence for this motion for reconsideration because Plaintiff Turner has not provided the Court with a satisfactory explanation for failing to provide the evidence or different facts earlier. (See Garcia, 58 Cal. App. 4th at 690.) Plaintiff has not explained when he learned of the “new facts” mentioned in his reply, or why he was unable to present this information earlier.

Further, even though the Court has granted Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice of Exhs. A-E, these deeds do not show the “facts” Plaintiff is alleging. Lastly, even if there were “new facts” showing illegal activity by Defendants, this does not go to the basis for the Court’s previous ruling granting Defendants’ motion to deem Requests for Admission admitted.

b. The Court has not Exhibited any Bias or Prejudice Against Plaintiff

The Court has already addressed Plaintiff’s concern that the Court expressed bias or prejudice. (See Court’s Minute Order, 8/8/2019.) Further, a motion for reconsideration is not the proper vehicle with which to request that the Court grant some unspecified motion to compel. (See Motion, p. 2:17.)

c. Plaintiff’s Argument that he did not Receive Defendant’s Requests for Admission is Without Merit

Lastly, Plaintiff Turner’s argument that he did not receive Defendants Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted is without merit. At the hearing on October 8, 2019, Mr. Turner raised the argument that he was not properly served; stated that he had recently moved and his correct address is 3990 Alzada Rd., Altadena, CA 91001. However, as shown at that hearing, the Motion that the Court granted on October 8, 2019 had been served at Mr. Turner’s Alzada Rd. address.

D. Conclusion

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration.