This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 09/05/2021 at 10:46:33 (UTC).

FELICIA C BROWN VS SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL.

Case Summary

On 11/25/2019 FELICIA C BROWN filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC . This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0899

  • Filing Date:

    11/25/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

BROWN FELICIA C

BROWN CRAIG A

Defendants

SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC.

CHASE BANK N.A.

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.

US BANK NA SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE TO LA SALLE BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF BEAR STEARNS ASSET BACKED SECURITIES 1 TRUST 2006-HE9 ITS ASSIGNEES AND/OR SUCCESSORS

J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SMITH MARK STEPHEN

Defendant Attorneys

JOHNSTON SARAH L.

RIBAR GWEN HEATHER

THOMASON RYAN CURTIS

YOON JOSEPH B.

JASSIM PARISA

ASCHERIN PRESTON K

KOZINSKA MAGDALENA D

ROBINSON CATHY KNECHT

 

Court Documents

Order - RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER (HEARING HELD 6-24-21)

6/25/2021: Order - RULING ON SUBMITTED MATTER (HEARING HELD 6-24-21)

Order - COURT ORDER/RULING (HEARING 3-25-21)

3/25/2021: Order - COURT ORDER/RULING (HEARING 3-25-21)

Case Management Statement

5/25/2021: Case Management Statement

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF PARISA JASSIM PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 430.41

1/26/2021: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF PARISA JASSIM PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 430.41

Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT

12/1/2020: Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT SECOND AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT

Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10) TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

12/17/2020: Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) - DEMURRER - WITH MOTION TO STRIKE (CCP 430.10) TO PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

Notice of Ruling

11/3/2020: Notice of Ruling

Reply - REPLY OF SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING ISO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

10/27/2020: Reply - REPLY OF SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING ISO DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Notice of Ruling

8/5/2020: Notice of Ruling

Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

7/16/2020: Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - DEMURRER - WITHOUT MOTION TO STRIKE TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLSINY

5/22/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLSINY

Declaration - DECLARATION OF DEMURRING PARTY REGARDING MEET AND CONFER

1/27/2020: Declaration - DECLARATION OF DEMURRING PARTY REGARDING MEET AND CONFER

Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

1/27/2020: Request for Judicial Notice - REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Proof of Service by Mail

1/29/2020: Proof of Service by Mail

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDG...)

12/5/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDG...)

Notice of Case Management Conference

11/25/2019: Notice of Case Management Conference

Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

11/26/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)

103 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/17/2022
  • Hearing03/17/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/08/2021
  • Hearing12/08/2021 at 1:30 PM in Department F at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Case Management Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/04/2021
  • Hearing11/04/2021 at 09:30 AM in Department C at 12720 Norwalk Blvd., Norwalk, CA 90650; Hearing on Motion to Set Aside/Vacate Dismissal (CCP 473)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2021
  • DocketDeclaration (of Cathy K. Robinson re Meet &Confer); Filed by US Bank, NA, Successor Trustee to LA Salle Bank National Association on behalf of the holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities 1 Trust 2006-HE9 its assignees and/or successors (Defendant); Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2021
  • DocketRequest for Judicial Notice (in Support of Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint); Filed by US Bank, NA, Successor Trustee to LA Salle Bank National Association on behalf of the holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities 1 Trust 2006-HE9 its assignees and/or successors (Defendant); Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/04/2021
  • DocketDemurrer - without Motion to Strike (To Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint); Filed by US Bank, NA, Successor Trustee to LA Salle Bank National Association on behalf of the holders of Bear Stearns Asset Backed Securities 1 Trust 2006-HE9 its assignees and/or successors (Defendant); Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2021
  • Docketat 1:30 PM in Department F; Case Management Conference - Held - Continued

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/28/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Case Management Conference)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2021
  • DocketThird Amended Complaint; Filed by Felicia C Brown (Plaintiff); Craig A Brown (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2021
  • DocketSummons on Third Amended Complaint; Filed by Felicia C Brown (Plaintiff); Craig A Brown (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
126 More Docket Entries
  • 12/05/2019
  • DocketOrder (Granting Temporary Restraining Order); Filed by Felicia C Brown (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/05/2019
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDG...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2019
  • DocketEx Parte Application (PLAINTIFFS EXPARTE REQUEST FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT PENDING LITIGATION); Filed by Felicia C Brown (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/04/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by Felicia C Brown (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2019
  • DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Felicia C Brown (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Felicia C Brown (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Felicia C Brown (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19NWCV00899    Hearing Date: March 25, 2021    Dept: C

BROWN v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.

CASE NO.:  19NWCV00899

HEARING:  03/25/21

#8

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendants SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. and US BANK, NA’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is CONTINUED to Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. to be heard in conjunction with Defendant JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

II. Defendants SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. and US BANK, NA’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint is CONTINUED to Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. to be heard in conjunction with Defendant JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

III. Defendant JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint set for Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 10:30 a.m. is ADVANCED to this date and CONTINUED to Thursday, June 24, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. to be heard in conjunction with Defendants SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. and US BANK, NA’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint.

Moving Party(s) to give Notice.

Case Number: 19NWCV00899    Hearing Date: November 03, 2020    Dept: C

BROWN v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., et al.

CASE NO.:  19NWCV00899

HEARING:  11/3/20 @ 10:30 AM

[Remote appearances are encouraged and will be given priority.]

#3

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and US Bank, NA’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s first amended complaint is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend.

Moving Parties to give NOTICE.

Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and US Bank, NA demur to the 1st – 6th causes of action on the ground that they fail to state facts sufficient to constitute causes of action.

1st CAUSE OF ACTION

UNFAIR COMPETITION: The Unfair Business Practices Act shall include “any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice.” (B&P Code 17200.) A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under these statutes must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the statutory elements of the violation. (Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 619.)

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated TILA. However, Plaintiffs’ TILA claims are barred by the 3-year statute of limitations. (15 USC 1635(f).) The loan was consummated on 9/6/06. Plaintiffs did not file the Complaint until 11/25/19. The claim is time-barred. Plaintiffs do not address the statute of limitations in their Opposition.

Accordingly, demurrer is SUSTAINED.

2nd CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATION OF THE HOMEOWNER’S BILL OF RIGHTS: VIOLATION OF HOMEOWNERS’ BILL OF RIGHTS:

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants violated Section 2923.6 because Plaintiffs were being considered for a mortgage application while Defendants allegedly were continuing with the foreclosure process. (FAC, ¶50).

However, Plaintiffs failed to allege that they submitted a “complete” application.

Further, Plaintiffs do not set forth facts establishing that they were entitled to another review, since they admit they had received prior reviews. (CC § 2923.6(g) – “In order to minimize the risk of borrowers submitting multiple applications for first lien loan modifications for the purpose of delay, the mortgage servicer shall not be obligated to evaluate applications from borrowers who have been evaluated or afforded a fair opportunity to be evaluated consistent with the requirements of this section, unless there has been a material change in the borrower’s financial circumstances since the date of the borrower’s previous application and that change is documented by the borrower and submitted to the mortgage servicer.”)

Accordingly, demurrer is SUSTAINED.

3rd CAUSE OF ACTION

WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE:

Plaintiffs contend that the foreclosure sale was wrongful because it took place while Plaintiff’s bankruptcy was pending.

However, the bankruptcy did not give rise to an automatic stay. “[I]if a single or joint case is filed by or against a debtor who is an individual under this title, and if 2 or more single or joint cases of the debtor were pending within the previous year but were dismissed, other than a case refiled under a chapter other than chapter 7 after dismissal under section 707(b), the stay under subsection (a) shall not go into effect upon the filing of the later case...” 11 U.S.C.A. § 362 (c)(4)(A)(i).

If two previous bankruptcies were filed within a year (and they have been dismissed), there is no automatic stay. Here, no automatic stay was triggered by Plaintiff’s third bankruptcy because the first and second bankruptcies were dismissed within twelve months. Plaintiff failed to address this issue in the Opposition.

Accordingly, demurrer is SUSTAINED.

4th CAUSE OF ACTION

FRAUD: The elements of intentional misrepresentation, or actual fraud, are: “(1) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity (scienter); (3) intent to defraud (i.e., to induce reliance); (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. Anderson v. Deloitte & Touche (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1468, 1474. ‘”Every element of the cause of action for fraud must be alleged in the proper manner (i.e., factually and specifically), and the policy of liberal construction of the pleadings ... will not ordinarily be invoked to sustain a pleading defective in any material respect.”’ (Committee On Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 216).” Rutherford Holdings, LLC v. Plaza Del Rey (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 221, 234. “The requirement of specificity in a fraud action against a corporation requires the plaintiff to allege 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. (Archuleta v. Grand Lodge etc. of Machinists (1968) 262 Cal.App.2d 202, 208–209; Gautier v. General Telephone Co. (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 302, 308; Mason v. Drug, Inc. (1939) 31 Cal.App.2d 697, 703; Sanders v. Ford Motor Co. (1979) 96 Cal.App.3d Supp. 43, 46; see Grossman & Van Alstyne, California Practice (2d ed. 1976) § 984, pp. 111–114.).” Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157.

Plaintiffs have not pled Fraud with the required specificity. Plaintiffs failed to address Fraud in their Opposition.

Demurrer is SUSTAINED.

5th CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING:

Plaintiffs’ claim for Breach of the Implied Covenant fails to allege any facts to show that Plaintiffs were deprived of the benefits of the agreement. (Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc., (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1395.)

There is nothing in the original loan contract which entitles Plaintiffs to renegotiate the terms of the subject loan or for the lender to accept partial payments.

Demurrer is SUSTAINED.

6th CAUSE OF ACTION

DECLARATORY RELIEF: “A complaint for declaratory relief should show the following: (a) A proper subject of declaratory relief within the scope of CCP 1060; [and] (b) An actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the rights or obligations of a party.” 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th Ed. 2008), Pleading, § 853, p. 268. “The action is unusual in that it may be brought to determine and declare rights before an actual invasion of those rights has occurred. Thus, it operates prospectively, rather than merely to redress past wrongs. (Gafcon v. Ponsor & Associates (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1388, 1403, 1 Cal. Proc. (5th), Attorneys, § 386; Canova v. Trustees of Imperial Irr. Dist. Employee Pension Plan (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1487, 1497).” Id. at § 850, p. 265 (emphasis added). “The existence of an actual present controversy must be pleaded specifically. General statements about a controversy are useless; the facts of the respective claims concerning the subject must be given…” Id. at § 862, p. 277.

Declaratory relief is not available to plaintiff, due to the comprehensive nature of the nonjudicial foreclosure statutory framework, as set forth above. Plaintiffs fail to allege any actual controversy.

Demurrer is SUSTAINED.

Case Number: 19NWCV00899    Hearing Date: October 08, 2020    Dept: C

BROWN v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.

CASE NO.: 19NWCV00899

HEARING: 10/08/20

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

# 10

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to request for production of documents is GRANTED. (CCP § 2031.300.)

II. Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.’s unopposed motion to compel Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories and Special Interrogatories is GRANTED. (CCP § 2030.290.)

Moving Party to give Notice.

If a party to whom interrogatories or requests for production are directed fails to respond at all, the propounding party’s remedy is to seek a court order compelling answers thereto. (CCP §§ 2030.290 (interrogatories); 2031.300 (requests for production.) All that needs to be shown is that the discovery was properly served on the opposing party, that the time to respond has expired, and that no response of any kind has been served. The moving party is not required to show a reasonable and good faith attempt to resolve the matter informally before filing this motion. A motion to compel initial discovery responses need not show good cause, meeting and conferring, or timely filing, and need not be accompanied by a separate statement. (See Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pac. Healthcare Consultants (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 404.) The failure to timely respond also waives all objections.

Here, Defendant has shown that the discovery requests were properly served onto Plaintiff on February 4, 2020. After a couple extensions of time to respond, Defendant has still not received any responses. Therefore, the Motions to Compel are granted, and Plaintiff is ordered to provide verified responses without objection. If any objections are asserted, it will be tantamount to no response at all and will be deemed a violation of this Court’s order.

Plaintiff FELICIA C. BROWN is ORDERED to provide verified responses and documents to Special Interrogatories and Form Interrogatories without objection no later than 15 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended pursuant to agreement of the parties.

Plaintiff FELICIA C. BROWN is ORDERED to provide verified responses and documents to Requests for Production without objection no later than 15 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order. This date may be extended pursuant to agreement of the parties.

Absent substantial justification, a person who successfully makes or opposes a motion to compel responses or a motion to deem requests for admission admitted is entitled to sanctions from the unsuccessful party. (CCP §§ 2030.290 (interrogatories); 2031.300 (requests for production); 2033.280 (requests for admission); see also recently enacted CCP § 2023.050 (Except as otherwise specified, the court after notice to a party, person, or attorney, and after the opportunity for a hearing, is required to impose a $250 sanction for any of the following: (1) the failure to respond in good faith to a document request; (2) production of the requested documents within 7 days of a scheduled motion to compel production filed by the propounding party due to the failure to respond in good faith to a production request; or (3) the failure to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by letter to resolve a dispute regarding the request. The court can also require a sanctioned attorney to report the sanction in writing to the State Bar within 30 days of the imposition of the sanction. The court can excuse the sanction if it makes written findings that the person subject to sanction acted with substantial justification or other circumstances make the imposition of the sanction unjust).)

Plaintiff has failed to oppose the motions and the Court knows of no other circumstances which would make the imposition of sanctions unjust. Therefore, Defendant’s requests for monetary sanctions are granted as follows:

Plaintiff FELICIA C. BROWN and/or counsel of record is ORDERED to pay Defendant and its counsel of record sanctions in the total amount of $255 ($195/hr. x 1 hr., plus a $60 filing fee) no later than 30 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Plaintiff FELICIA C. BROWN and/or counsel of record is ORDERED to pay Defendant and its counsel of record sanctions in the total amount of $255 ($195/hr. x 1 hr., plus a $60 filing fee) no later than 30 days from the Court’s issuance of this Order.

Case Number: 19NWCV00899    Hearing Date: October 02, 2020    Dept: C

FELICIA C. BROWN v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., ET AL

CASE NO.: 19NWCV00899

HEARING:  10/02/20

JUDGE: OLIVIA ROSALES

#1

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendant’s motion to compel verified responses and motion to compel to request for production of documents was erroneously set on Friday, October 2, 2020. The Court is unavailable on this day. Motions are continued, on Court’s own motion, to Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department C.

Case Number: 19NWCV00899    Hearing Date: August 04, 2020    Dept: C

BROWN v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., et al.

CASE NO.:  19NWCV00899

HEARING:  8/4/20

JUDGE: RAUL A. SAHAGUN

[Remote appearances are encouraged and will be given priority.]

#11

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and US Bank, NA’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s complaint is MOOT. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on May 7, 2020.

Moving Parties to give NOTICE.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Chase Bank USA NA is a litigant

Latest cases where U.S. Bank National Association is a litigant

Latest cases where Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where JPMorgan Chase Bank NA is a litigant