This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 01/16/2021 at 09:54:32 (UTC).

BRIGHT ENABULELE VS THE REO GROUP, INC.; ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/12/2018 BRIGHT ENABULELE filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against THE REO GROUP, INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Torrance Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are DEIRDRE HILL and RAMONA G. SEE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****2612

  • Filing Date:

    01/12/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Torrance Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

DEIRDRE HILL

RAMONA G. SEE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

ENABULELE BRIGHT AN INDIVIDUAL

ENABULELE BRIGHT

Defendants

VARTAN SHORBERT

THE REO GROUP INC. A CALIFORNIA CORP.

MHC FINANCIAL

DOES 1 THROUGH 100 INCLUSIVE

"SEAN"

ADENHEIM INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

MARTIR CARMEN AN INDIVIDUAL

GUSTAFSSON OLOF AN INDIVIDAUL

UNICITIZENS FINANCIAL LLC A LIMITED...

MARTIR CARMEN

GUSTAFSSON OLOF

UNICITIZENS FINANCIAL LLC A LIMITED

VARTAN SHOBERT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

JARROD Y. NAKANO

NAKANO JARROD YUTAKA

UKU LEVI REUBEN

Defendant Attorneys

JOSEPH W. .KELLENER

NADER NADER AARON

HALAVAIS COBY RICHARD

KELLENER JOSEPH W.

KELLENER JOSEPH WIND

 

Court Documents

Notice of Ruling

11/5/2020: Notice of Ruling

Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE

11/5/2020: Notice - NOTICE NOTICE OF TRIAL AND FINAL STATUS CONFERENCE

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT; TRIAL SETTING...) OF 06/30/2020

6/30/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (HEARING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT; TRIAL SETTING...) OF 06/30/2020

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF COBY HALAVAIS

6/16/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF COBY HALAVAIS

Reply - REPLY REPLY TO RESPONSE TO OSC:RE PRELIMINARY INJUCTION

6/22/2020: Reply - REPLY REPLY TO RESPONSE TO OSC:RE PRELIMINARY INJUCTION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

4/1/2020: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (NON-APPEARANCE CASE REVIEW)

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

1/2/2020: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL ; HEARING O...)

10/7/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL ; HEARING O...)

Complaint

1/12/2018: Complaint

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

2/9/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Declaration

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice

5/16/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice

Case Management Statement

5/29/2018: Case Management Statement

Opposition -

8/17/2018: Opposition -

Notice of Ruling -

8/23/2018: Notice of Ruling -

Notice - Notice of Non-Receipt of Opposition to Motion To Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint

11/14/2018: Notice - Notice of Non-Receipt of Opposition to Motion To Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike; Hearing on Mo...)

11/21/2018: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike; Hearing on Mo...)

Answer

11/29/2018: Answer

Notice - Notice Notice of Case Reassignment

1/8/2019: Notice - Notice Notice of Case Reassignment

142 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/28/2021
  • Hearing06/28/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2021
  • Hearing06/07/2021 at 10:00 AM in Department B at 825 Maple Ave., Torrance, CA 90503; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • DocketNotice (Notice of Trial and Final Status Conference); Filed by The Reo Group, Inc., a California Corp. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/05/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by The Reo Group, Inc., a California Corp. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend (Second Amended Complaint) - Held - Motion Denied

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department B; Case Management Conference - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Leave to Amend Second Amended Complaint...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2020
  • DocketReply (Reply to Opposition to motion for leave to amend complaint); Filed by Bright Enabulele (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketOpposition (Opposition to Motion for Leave to Amend); Filed by The Reo Group, Inc., a California Corp. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2020
  • DocketNotice (Unavailability); Filed by Bright Enabulele (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
230 More Docket Entries
  • 02/05/2018
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by BRIGHT, ENABULELE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/05/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by BRIGHT, ENABULELE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by BRIGHT, ENABULELE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2018
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by BRIGHT, ENABULELE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2018
  • DocketProof-Service/Summons; Filed by BRIGHT, ENABULELE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/29/2018
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Jarrod Yutaka Nakano (Attorney); BRIGHT, ENABULELE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by BRIGHT, ENABULELE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Bright Enabulele (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/12/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by BRIGHT, ENABULELE (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: YC072612    Hearing Date: November 04, 2020    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka Wednesday, November 4, 2020

Department B Calendar No. 9

PROCEEDINGS

Bright Enabulele v. The REO Group, Inc., et al.

YC072612

  1. Bright Enabulele’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint

    TENTATIVE RULING

    Bright Enabulele’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint is denied.

    The court may, in furtherance of justice, and on such terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 473 & 576. Judicial policy favors resolution of all disputed matters between the parties and, therefore, leave to amend is generally liberally granted. Ordinarily, the court will not consider the validity of the proposed amended pleading in ruling on a motion for leave since grounds for a demurrer or motion to strike are premature. However, the court does have discretion to deny leave to amend where a proposed amendment fails to state a valid cause of action as a matter of law and the defect cannot be cured by further amendment. Cal. Casualty General Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 274, 281.

    The application for leave to amend should be made as soon as the need to amend is discovered. The closer the trial date, the stronger the showing required for leave to amend. If the party seeking the amendment has been dilatory, and the delay has prejudiced the opposing party, the court has the discretion to deny leave to amend. Hirsa v. Superior Court (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 486, 490. Prejudice exists where the amendment would require delaying the trial, resulting in loss of critical evidence, or added costs of preparation such as an increased burden of discovery. Magpali v. Farmers Group, Inc. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 471, 486-488.

    Pursuant to Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(a): A motion for leave to amend must: “(1) Include a copy of the proposed amendment or amended pleading, which must be serially numbered to differentiate it from previous pleadings or amendments; (2) State what allegations in the previous pleading are proposed to be deleted, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the deleted allegations are located; and (3) State what allegations are proposed to be added to the previous pleading, if any, and where, by page, paragraph, and line number, the additional allegations are located.”

    Here, Plaintiff has adequately complied with Rule 3.1324(a). Confusingly, Plaintiff did not set forth these additions and deletions in the actual motion itself, but, improperly added an “addendum” to the actual proposed Third Amended Complaint. However, for purposes of Rule 3.1324(a), the Court finds that Plaintiff has adequately complied with this Rule.

    Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1324(b) also requires that the moving party submit a separate declaration specifying:

    “(1) The effect of the amendment;

    (2) Why the amendment is necessary and proper;

    (3) When the facts giving rise to the amended allegations were discovered; and

    (4) The reasons why the request for amendment was not made earlier.”

    While Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration states facts meeting elements (1) and (2), neither Plaintiff nor Plaintiff’s counsel submitted a declaration setting forth the elements of Rule 3.1324(b)(3) and (4). (Decl., Levi Reuben Uku, ¶¶ 1-7.)

    The Court notes that Plaintiff’s prior motion for leave to amend was denied without prejudice precisely due to the defects noted above. The instant motion has failed to correct these noted defects.

    The Court further notes that Plaintiff is also improperly seeking to reinstate causes of action against Defendant REO Group to which the Court sustained REO Group’s Demurrer without leave to amend. The Court also notes that Plaintiff is seeking to reinstate previously dismissed parties without any facts or competent evidence to demonstrate why the reinstatement of these parties are necessary or proper. Instead, Plaintiff counsel merely provides a conclusory hearsay statement that these parties were dismissed by former counsel without the consent of Plaintiff. (Decl., Levi Reuben Uku, ¶ 7.)

    Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Third Amended Complaint is denied.

    Defendant REO Group is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: YC072612    Hearing Date: June 30, 2020    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka

Department B

Tuesday – June 30, 2020

Calendar No. 4

PROCEEDINGS

Bright Enabulele v. The REO Group, Inc., et al.

YC072612

1. Plaintiff Bright Enabulele’s Application for Preliminary Injunction

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Bright Enabulele’s Application for Preliminary Injunction is granted, subject to Plaintiff posting an undertaking with the Court in the sum of $50,000 within 14 days of the hearing.

Objections

Defendant’s objections 1 to 4 are sustained.

Application for Preliminary Injunction

“In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the trial court considers two related factors: (1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits of its case at trial, and (2) the interim harm that the plaintiff is likely to sustain if the injunction is denied as compared to the harm that the defendant is likely to suffer if the court grants a preliminary injunction. The latter factor involves consideration of such things as the inadequacy of other remedies, the degree of irreparable harm, and the necessity of preserving the status quo.” 14859 Moorpark Homeowner’s Assn. v. VRT Corp. (1998) 63 Cal.App.4th 1396, 1402.

Plaintiff applies for a preliminary injunction to prevent the foreclosure sale of the subject real property commonly known as 3510 Hughes Lane, Inglewood, CA 90305, Assessor Parcel No. 402 502 2025, pursuant to a “Deed of Trust and Assignment of Rents Securing a Promissory Note," recorded on December 14, 2016.

Plaintiff alleges the following grounds for his request: Plaintiff contends that he did not sign the Deed of Trust and the Promissory Note, and, therefore, the Deed of Trust and Promissory Note were forged. (Decl., Bright Enabulele, ¶ 28.) Plaintiff alleges that the forged documents were executed in furtherance of a scheme to fraudulently obtain the equity that existed in Plaintiff’s property. (Decl., Bright Enabulele, ¶¶ 11-41.)

Under CCP § 526, “(a) An injunction may be granted in the following cases: . . . (2) When it appears by the complaint or affidavits that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce waste, or great or irreparable injury, to a party to the action. . . . (4) When pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief. (5) Where it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford adequate relief. . . .”

Based on the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint and the declaration of Bright Enabulele, Plaintiff has established that he would suffer great or irreparable injury if his house is sold prior to a judicial adjudication of the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has failed to establish a probability of prevailing on his claims because his declaration regarding not signing the documents lacks credibility. Defendant also contends that Plaintiff acted with unclean hands by misrepresenting facts on the loan documents. Finally, Defendant argues that foreclosure is proper because Plaintiff has yet to restore the payment of funds due to The REO Group, Inc. In light of the competing evidence presented by both parties, the Court does not necessarily make a finding under these circumstances that Plaintiff has definitively established a probability of prevailing on his claims.

Plaintiff has alleged that the Deed of Trust was fraudulently induced and this assertion is supported by a sworn declaration under penalty of perjury. Thus, Plaintiff contends that the subject deed of trust and purported basis of the foreclosure sale is void. “Numerous authorities have established the rule that an instrument wholly void, such as an undelivered deed, a forged instrument, or a deed in blank, cannot be made the foundation of a good title, even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase.” Trout v. Taylor (1934) 220 Cal. 652, 656. Here, Plaintiff alleges that he did not sign the deed of trust and did not deliver the deed; thus, said deed of trust is void.

In balancing the respective harms, the Court finds that the harm that would occur to Plaintiff from the sale of the property outweighs the harm that would occur to Defendants from delaying the sale until a hearing on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. In addition, granting the preliminary injunction application fosters the policy of retaining the status quo until a resolution of the merits of Plaintiff’s claims.

Pursuant to CCP § 529, the Court enters an order requiring Plaintiff to post an undertaking.

The Court orders that Plaintiff post an undertaking in the sum of $50,000 to be deposited with the Court within 14 days of the hearing, which reflects the potential fees to be expended by Defendant in this action.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Case Number: YC072612    Hearing Date: May 11, 2020    Dept: M

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Southwest District

Torrance Dept. M

BRIGHT ENABULELE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

Case No.:

YC072612

vs.

[Tentative] RULING

THE REO GROUP, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: May 11, 2020

Moving Parties: Plaintiff Bright Enabulele

Responding Party: Defendant The REO Group, Inc.

Application for TRO and OSC re: Preliminary Injunction

The court considered Plaintiff’s ex parte application and Defendant’s opposition.

RULING

The application for a temporary restraining order is GRANTED. Defendant is temporarily enjoined from

(1) going forward with the foreclosure sale currently scheduled for May 22, 2020 pursuant to the Notice of Sale recorded on January 22, 2020, by C&H Trust Deed Services on behalf of defendant The REO Group, Inc. in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office as document no. 20200084375.

The OSC re preliminary injunction is set for June 30, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff is ordered to personally serve the ex parte application, TRO, and OSC re preliminary injunction.

The opposition and reply are to be filed and served pursuant to CCP § 1005(b).

BACKGROUND

On December 12, 2018, Plaintiff filed his operative Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff alleges the following facts. Plaintiff owns real property located at 3510 W. Hughes Lane, Inglewood, CA. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants are involved in a scheme to defraud the public into unwanted loans with unwarranted fees in an illegal enterprise to foreclose on the homes of unsuspecting customers. Unknown to Plaintiff, Defendants charged Plaintiff with $60,000 in brokerage fees and a six-month pre-payment penalty. Later, Plaintiff discovered that the loan was not a refinance, but a second loan. None of these facts were allegedly disclosed to plaintiff.

Plaintiff alleged the following causes of action: 1. Breach of Contract; 2. Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; 3. Promissory Estoppel; 4. Rescission Claim Under TILA (Reg. Z); 5. Fraud; 6. Negligent Misrepresentations; 7. Unfair Business Practices. On March 20, 2019, Defendant REO Group, Inc.’s demurrer was sustained, without leave to amend, in part, and overruled, in part. The demurrer was overruled with respect to the fourth and seventh causes of action. However, on November 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint which is currently scheduled to be heard on June 30, 2020.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff applies for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause regarding preliminary injunction to prevent the foreclosure sale of the subject real property commonly known as 3510 Hughes Lane, Inglewood, CA 90305, assessor parcel no. 402 502 2025, pursuant to a “Deed of Trust and Assignment of Rents Securing a Promissory Note," recorded on December 14, 2016.

Plaintiff alleges the following grounds for his request. Plaintiff contends that he did not sign the Deed of Trust and the Promissory Note, and, therefore, the Deed of Trust and Promissory Note were forged. (Decl., Bright Enabulele, ¶ 28.) Plaintiff alleges that the forged documents were executed in furtherance of a scheme to fraudulently obtain the equity that existed in Plaintiff’s property. (Decl., Bright Enabulele, ¶¶ 1-41.)

A temporary restraining order is granted to maintain the status quo pending a decision on a preliminary injunction. Under CCP § 526, “(a) An injunction may be granted in the following cases: . . . (2) When it appears by the complaint or affidavits that the commission or continuance of some act during the litigation would produce waste, or great or irreparable injury, to a party to the action. . . . (4) When pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate relief. (5) Where it would be extremely difficult to ascertain the amount of compensation which would afford adequate relief. . . .”

Under CCP § 527(c), “No temporary restraining order shall be granted without notice to the opposing party, unless both of the following requirements are satisfied: (1) It appears from facts shown by affidavit or by the verified complaint that great or irreparable injury will result to the applicant before the matter can be heard on notice. (2) The applicant or the applicant’s attorney certifies one of the following to the court under oath: (A) That within a reasonable time prior to the application the applicant informed the opposing party or the opposing party’s attorney at what time and where the application would be made. . . .”

Based on the allegations of the Second Amended Complaint and the declaration of Bright Enabulele, Plaintiff has established that he would suffer great or irreparable injury if his house is sold prior to a noticed hearing on his motion for preliminary injunction. Defendant argues that foreclosure is proper because Plaintiff has yet to restore the payment of funds due to The REO Group, Inc. However, Plaintiff has alleged that the Deed of Trust was fraudulently induced. Therefore, in balancing the respective harms, the Court finds that the harm that would occur to Plaintiff from the sale of the property outweighs the harm that would occur to Defendants from delaying the sale until a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction.

Thus, the Court finds that the elements under CCP § 527(c) have been met. Plaintiff has shown that great or irreparable injury will result if the subject property is sold by foreclosure sale on May 22, 2020. Further, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s counsel gave proper notice of the ex parte application, as required under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1150(g) and Rule 3.1203.

Moreover, Emergency Rule 2 stays any action for foreclosure on a mortgage or deed of trust and prohibits the court from taking any action or issuing any decisions or judgments unless the Court finds that action is required to further the public health and safety. Rule 2 also tolls any statute of limitations for filing an action for foreclosure. Finally, the rule extends the period for electing or exercising any rights under CCP § 725a, et seq.

The application is GRANTED.