This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/19/2020 at 03:49:45 (UTC).

ANGELO J. JACKSON VS. WELLS FARGO BANK, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/17/2017 ANGELO J JACKSON filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against WELLS FARGO BANK. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Compton Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MAURICE A. LEITER and BRIAN S. CURREY. The case status is Disposed - Dismissed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****8944

  • Filing Date:

    10/17/2017

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Dismissed

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Compton Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MAURICE A. LEITER

BRIAN S. CURREY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

JACKSON ANGELO J.

Defendants

NBS DEFAULT SERVICES

WELL FARGO BANK

RALPH PARTNERS II LLC

DOES 1-50

ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL

WELL FARGO BANK A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

NBS DEFAULT SERVICES A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

RALPH PARTNERS II LLC ETC.

Other

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

DUARTE MICHAEL J.

DUARTE MICHAEL JAMES

Defendant Attorneys

ABOLIAN DALAR

DETTERBACH ALAN M.

DETTELBACH ALAN MARTIN

YANG ELAINE

DERDERIAN PATIL

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service by Mail

7/29/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Request for Judicial Notice

7/29/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Response - RESPONSE TO THE DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT RALPHS PARTNERS II

6/4/2019: Response - RESPONSE TO THE DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT RALPHS PARTNERS II

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL...)

5/10/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL...)

Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

4/26/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

4/26/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

Notice - NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL

3/20/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE MANAGEME...)

3/14/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE MANAGEME...)

Proof of Service by Mail

2/1/2019: Proof of Service by Mail

Case Management Statement

1/18/2019: Case Management Statement

Declaration - Declaration Regarding Meet and Confer

1/23/2019: Declaration - Declaration Regarding Meet and Confer

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-08-15 00:00:00

8/15/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-08-15 00:00:00

Minute Order -

10/3/2018: Minute Order -

Summons

10/17/2017: Summons

Notice of Case Management Conference

10/17/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference

Declaration - Declaration of Michael J. Duarte in Response to the Demurrer of Defendant Ralph Partners II, LLC

10/31/2018: Declaration - Declaration of Michael J. Duarte in Response to the Demurrer of Defendant Ralph Partners II, LLC

Declaration -

10/5/2018: Declaration -

107 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/20/2020
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by ANGELO J. JACKSON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (For Failure to Prosecute) - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/10/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2020
  • DocketJudgment; Filed by WELL FARGO BANK, a California Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2020
  • DocketOrder (Sustaining Without Leave to Amend Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.a.'s Demurrer to Plaintiff's Fourth Amended Complaint); Filed by WELL FARGO BANK, a California Corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by RALPH PARTNERS II, LLC, etc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/10/2020
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Notice of Rejection of Electronic Filing]); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2020
  • Docketat 09:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
138 More Docket Entries
  • 04/09/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2018
  • DocketMinute order entered: 2018-04-09 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2018
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Advanced to this date & continued) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/29/2017
  • DocketNotice of Continuance of Hearing; Filed by ANGELO J. JACKSON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • DocketSummons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by ANGELO J. JACKSON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by ANGELO J. JACKSON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet - Unlimited; Filed by ANGELO J. JACKSON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/17/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by ANGELO J. JACKSON (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: TC028944    Hearing Date: February 04, 2020    Dept: A

# 8. Angelo Jackson v. Wells Fargo Bank, et al.

Case No.: TC028944

Matter on calendar for: Demurrer to the Fourth Amended Complaint

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

    Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., foreclosed on plaintiff Angelo Jackson’s property and subsequently sold it at a trustee’s sale to defendant Ralph Partners II, LLC. Ralph Partners has since sold the property to a third party. NBS Default Services was the trustee. Jackson alleges that Wells Fargo improperly foreclosed on his property and that Ralph Partners failed to care for his personal property after his eviction from the property.

    The Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following causes of action:

  1. Fraud and misrepresentation,

  2. Negligence,

  3. Bailment, and

  4. Conversion

    Only the first cause of action is alleged against Defendant Wells Fargo, which now demurs to the FAC. An opposition and reply have been filed and considered.

  1. Standard

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.) In testing the sufficiency of the complaint, the court must assume the truth of (1) the properly pleaded factual allegations; (2) facts that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3) judicially noticed matters. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The Court may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.App.4th 634, 638.) Because a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the plaintiff must show that the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer. (C.C.P., § 430.10(e); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1126.)

Sufficient facts are the essential facts of the case "with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of his cause of action.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.) "Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant to ruling upon the demurrer." (Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609610.) Under Code Civil Procedure § 430.10(f), a demurrer may also be sustained if a complaint is “uncertain.” Uncertainty exists where a complaint’s factual allegations are so confusing they do not sufficiently apprise a defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

  1. Analysis

    1. Judicial notice

Defendant’s request for judicial notice of recorded documents and of documents filed in this suit is granted.

    1. Fraud

The elements of fraud are (1) a misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) Fraud must be pled with specificity. (Id. at 645.) This “necessitates pleading facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means representations were tendered.” (Ibid.) Alleging fraud against a corporation requires including the “'names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written. [Tarmann v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.]” (Ibid.)

Plaintiff’s opposition consists of a declaration by his attorney stating that Plaintiff has supplemented his pleading to the best of Plaintiff’s ability. (Opp. ¶¶ 3–5.) Plaintiff also wishes to incorporate the opposition he filed to the previous demurrer, although that opposition was unable to defeat the previous demurrer. (Id. at ¶ 2.) What remains for this Court is an analysis of the FAC’s allegations.

Paragraph 13 contains the first allegations relating to a misrepresentation. Plaintiff allegations that he had multiple telephone calls and written correspondence with three employees about Plaintiff’s intent to modify his loan, and that Exhibit A memorialized these conversations. (FAC ¶ 13.) Exhibit A is a letter stating that his loan application was received. (FAC, Exh. A.) The FAC fails to indicate what was misrepresented by Exhibit A or in the conversations relating to Exhibit A.

Paragraph 18 includes similar language. Plaintiff alleges that he spoke with multiple individuals concerning the loan modification process, and that they “gave Plaintiff the clear impression that the process of securing the modification was going on the right track. During this time, Plaintiff continued making his monthly payments.” (FAC ¶ 18.) Paragraph 19 is similar to 18.

Plaintiff attempts to allege that Defendant never intended to modify his loan, and that their misrepresentations prevented him from searching for other home loan modification options. However, there is no specificity in these allegations; Plaintiff fails to allege a misrepresentation, knowledge of falsity, or intent to induce reliance in anything but conclusory language.

Plaintiff has had several attempts to cure the defects but has failed to do so. Wells Fargo’s demurrer to the first cause of action of the Fourth Amended Complaint is sustained without leave to amend.

  1. Ruling

    The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

    Next dates:

    Notice: