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.
Disposed - Dismissed
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
MAURICE A. LEITER
BRIAN S. CURREY
JACKSON ANGELO J.
NBS DEFAULT SERVICES
WELL FARGO BANK
RALPH PARTNERS II LLC
ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN CLAIMING ANY LEGAL
WELL FARGO BANK A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
NBS DEFAULT SERVICES A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
RALPH PARTNERS II LLC ETC.
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
DUARTE MICHAEL J.
DUARTE MICHAEL JAMES
DETTERBACH ALAN M.
DETTELBACH ALAN MARTIN
7/29/2019: Proof of Service by Mail
7/29/2019: Request for Judicial Notice
6/4/2019: Response - RESPONSE TO THE DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT RALPHS PARTNERS II
5/10/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE; ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DISMISSAL...)
4/26/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
4/26/2019: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike
3/20/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF UNAVAILABILITY OF COUNSEL
3/14/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE; CASE MANAGEME...)
2/1/2019: Proof of Service by Mail
1/18/2019: Case Management Statement
1/23/2019: Declaration - Declaration Regarding Meet and Confer
8/15/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-08-15 00:00:00
10/3/2018: Minute Order -
10/17/2017: Notice of Case Management Conference
10/31/2018: Declaration - Declaration of Michael J. Duarte in Response to the Demurrer of Defendant Ralph Partners II, LLC
10/5/2018: Declaration -
DocketRequest for Dismissal; Filed by ANGELO J. JACKSON (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Case Management Conference - HeldRead MoreRead Less
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 CourtRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketJudgment; Filed by WELL FARGO BANK, a California Corporation (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
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
DocketCase Management Statement; Filed by RALPH PARTNERS II, LLC, etc. (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCertificate of Mailing for ([Notice of Rejection of Electronic Filing]); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 09:00 AM in Department A, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - HeldRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Reassignment and Order for Plaintiff to Give Notice; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketMinute order entered: 2018-04-09 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A; Case Management Conference (Conference-Case Management; Advanced to this date & continued) -Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Continuance of Hearing; Filed by ANGELO J. JACKSON (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by ANGELO J. JACKSON (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by ANGELO J. JACKSON (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet - Unlimited; Filed by ANGELO J. JACKSON (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by ANGELO J. JACKSON (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
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
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:
Fraud and misrepresentation,
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.
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, 609–610.) 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.)
Defendant’s request for judicial notice of recorded documents and of documents filed in this suit is granted.
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.
The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.