This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/20/2019 at 02:41:35 (UTC).

STEVEN TOBIN VS ANCHOR LANDING INVESTMENT LLC ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/20/2017 STEVEN TOBIN filed a Property - Foreclosure lawsuit against ANCHOR LANDING INVESTMENT LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7673

  • Filing Date:

    12/20/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Foreclosure

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners and Cross Defendants

TOBIN STEVEN

DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL INC.

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION

U.S. BANK N.A.

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY FSB DBA CHRISTIANA TRUST

AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE COMPANY

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Defendants

DLJ MORTGAGE CAPITAL INC.

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION

U.S. BANK N.A.

ASSET BACKED SECURITIES CORP.

LEE ROBERT

RESIDENTIAL CREDITY OPPORTUNITIES TRUST

CHRISTIANA TRUST

HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST SERIES AMQ2006-HE7

ANCHOR LANDING INVESTMENT LLC

DOES 1-100

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY FSB

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY FSB DBA CHRISTIANA TRUST

Defendant, Respondent and Cross Plaintiff

ANCHOR LANDING INVESTMENT LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

ACTION LEGAL TEAM

Defendant Attorneys

COUTTS MELISSA ROBBINS

STEPHENS TIMOTHY JOHN

NUSSBAUM LANE MICHAEL

GHIDOTTI MICHELLE RENE

RIBAR GWEN HEATHER

 

Court Documents

FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE; ETC

3/5/2018: FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: (1) WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE; ETC

PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

3/21/2018: PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

Minute Order

3/21/2018: Minute Order

DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

4/9/2018: DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

DECLARATION OF DEMURRING PARTY REGARDING MEET AND CONFER

4/9/2018: DECLARATION OF DEMURRING PARTY REGARDING MEET AND CONFER

PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION'S DECLARATION OF NON- MONETARY STATUS [CIV. CODE ?29241]

4/26/2018: PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION'S DECLARATION OF NON- MONETARY STATUS [CIV. CODE ?29241]

Minute Order

8/22/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

8/22/2018: Unknown

Other -

11/16/2018: Other -

Ex Parte Application

1/24/2019: Ex Parte Application

Reply

2/1/2019: Reply

Order

2/21/2019: Order

Request for Judicial Notice

3/21/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

3/21/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

4/8/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Request for Judicial Notice

4/8/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Reply

5/30/2019: Reply

Unknown

6/3/2019: Unknown

111 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/07/2019
  • Notice of Ruling (re: Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment); Filed by Asset Backed Securities Corp. (Defendant); DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. (Defendant); Home Equity Loan Trust Series AMQ2006-HE7 (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Order to Show Cause Re: Dismissal (of Unnamed Doe Defendants)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Conference (ReMediation Setting)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/04/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 58; Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/03/2019
  • Notice of Limited Scope Representation; Filed by Steven Tobin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • Reply (Defendants DLJ Mortgage and U.S. Bank, N.A.'s Objections to Plaintiff's Request For Judicial Notice); Filed by DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. (Defendant); U.S. Bank N.A. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • Reply (Defendants Objections to Plaintiff's Evidence in Support of Plaintiff's Oppotiion to Motion For Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, For Summary Adjudication); Filed by DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. (Defendant); U.S. Bank N.A. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • Reply (Defendants Reply In Support Of Their Motion For Summary Judgment); Filed by DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. (Defendant); U.S. Bank N.A. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
158 More Docket Entries
  • 02/09/2018
  • DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/09/2018
  • Demurrer; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/30/2018
  • Notice of Related Cases

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/27/2017
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR: (1) WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE; ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Steven Tobin (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/20/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC687673    Hearing Date: January 27, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: January 27, 2020

Case Name: Tobin v. Anchor Landing Investment, LLC, et al.

Case No.: BC687673

Motion: (1) Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

(2) Motion for Relief from Waiver of Jury Trial

Moving Party: (1) Defendant Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB

(2) Plaintiff Steven Tobin

Responding Party: (1) Plaintiff Steven Tobin

(2) Unopposed

Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is denied.

The Motion for Relief from Waiver of Jury Trial is granted.

I. Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

On June 4, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB’s motion for summary judgment. The Court entered judgment on June 28, 2019, and Defendant served a notice of entry of judgment on July 15, 2019.

Defendant now moves for attorneys’ fees pursuant to contract as the prevailing party in this action.

On January 3, 2020, the Court continued the instant Motion, stating,

Plaintiff argues, among other things, that the Motion is untimely. The Court agrees.

A motion for attorneys’ fees must be brought within the time to file a notice of appeal, (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702), which is on or before the earliest of “(A) 60 days after the superior court clerk serves on the party filing the notice of appeal a document entitled ‘Notice of Entry’ of judgment or a filed-endorsed copy of the judgment, showing the date either was served; (B) 60 days after the party filing the notice of appeal serves or is served by a party with a document entitled ‘Notice of Entry’ of judgment or a filed-endorsed copy of the judgment, accompanied by proof of service; or (C) 180 days after entry of judgment.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104.)

To the extent Defendant served a notice of entry of judgment on July 15, 2019, the filing deadline for the Motion was September 13, 2019. However, the Motion was filed on September 19, 2019, such that it is untimely.

It is true that, “[f]or good cause, the trial judge may extend the time for filing a motion for attorney’s fees in the absence of a stipulation or for a longer period than allowed by stipulation.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702(d).) However, no evidence of “good cause” was provided. In fact, Defendant altogether rejects the contention that the Motion was filed late by attempting to seize upon a typographical error in Plaintiff’s Opposition.

The Court allowed for supplemental briefing/evidence as to “good cause” for extending the time to file the Motion.

Good cause (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702(d)), has now been shown (Supp. Williams Decl. ¶¶ 2-9), such that the Court will rule on the merits of the Motion.

Plaintiff further opposes the Motion on the grounds that (1) there is no contract authorizing an award of attorneys’ fees herein (Civ. Code § 1717), and (2) some of the fees sought are improper or unreasonable.

The Court agrees that there is no contract allowing for the requested fees. Defendant points to the promissory note underlying the foreclosure which was challenged in this action. However, section 7 of the subject promissory note provides for fees “in enforcing [the] Note . . .” after “the Note Holder has required [Plaintiff] to pay immediate in full . . . .” The promissory note does not allow for fees here because this was not an action to enforce the subject promissory note; rather, Defendant incurred fees in defending the propriety of its foreclosure sale. In fact, it is impossible for this action to have enforced the subject note because—as Defendant admits—the note no longer exists given that a foreclosure occurred.

Defendant also argues that sections 9, 14, and 22 of the subject deed of trust allow for fees. This too lacks merit. Notably, section 9 provides, “Any amounts disbursed by Lender under this Section 9 shall become additional debt of Borrower secured by this Security Instrument. These amounts shall bear interest at the Note rate from the date of disbursement and shall be payable, with such interest, upon notice from Lender to Borrower requesting payment.” This section does not allow for an award of fees. (Hart v. Clear Recon Corp. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 322, 327 [“We must consider whether paragraph 9 of the deed of trust specifically so provides. By its plain language, it does not. The paragraph allows the lender to take numerous actions, including incurring attorney's fees, to protect its interest. It then provides, in the language we emphasized above, that ‘any amounts disbursed by Lender under this Section 9 shall become additional debt of Borrower secured by this Security Instrument.’ This is not a provision that attorney's fees ‘shall be awarded’; it is, instead, a provision that attorney's fees, like any other expenses the lender may incur to protect its interest, will be added to the secured debt.”].)

Defendant argues that sections 14 and 22 of the subject deed of trust do not expressly provide for any restriction in which fees are to be added to the balance of the subject note. However, “[t]he whole of a contract is to be taken together, so as to give effect to every part, if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other” (Civ. Code § 1641), and section 9 seems to give meaning to the terms “charge” and “collect” in sections 14 and 22, respectively. Further, such sections are “naturally read to permit the lender to add any attorney fees it may have incurred to the outstanding amount due under the promissory note. There is no language . . . that indicates the trust deed permits a freestanding contractual attorney fees award.” (Chacker v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 351, 357.) That Defendant believes this result is unfair because the subject note no longer exists does not change what the parties contractually bargained for.

In sum, because there is no contract permitting an award of fees (Civ. Code § 1717), the Motion is denied.

II. Motion for Relief from Waiver of Jury Trial

Because there is no opposition, Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Waiver of Jury Trial is granted. (Boal v. Price Waterhouse & Co. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 806, 809 [“[I]t is well settled that, in light of the public policy favoring trial by jury, a motion to be relieved of a jury waiver should be granted unless, and except, where granting such a motion would work serious hardship to the objecting party.”].)

Case Number: BC687673    Hearing Date: January 03, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: January 3, 2019

Case Name: Tobin v. Anchor Landing Investment, LLC, et al.

Case No.: BC687673

Motion: Motion for Attorneys’ Fees

Moving Party: Defendant Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB

Responding Party: Plaintiff Steven Tobin

Tentative Ruling: The Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is denied without prejudice.

On June 4, 2019, the Court granted Defendant Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB’s motion for summary judgment. The Court entered judgment on June 28, 2019, and Defendant served a notice of entry of judgment on July 15, 2019.

Defendant now moves for attorneys’ fees pursuant to contract as the prevailing party in this action.

Plaintiff argues, among other things, that the Motion is untimely. The Court agrees.

A motion for attorneys’ fees must be brought within the time to file a notice of appeal, (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702), which is on or before the earliest of “(A) 60 days after the superior court clerk serves on the party filing the notice of appeal a document entitled ‘Notice of Entry’ of judgment or a filed-endorsed copy of the judgment, showing the date either was served; (B) 60 days after the party filing the notice of appeal serves or is served by a party with a document entitled ‘Notice of Entry’ of judgment or a filed-endorsed copy of the judgment, accompanied by proof of service; or (C) 180 days after entry of judgment.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104.)

To the extent Defendant served a notice of entry of judgment on July 15, 2019, the filing deadline for the Motion was September 13, 2019. However, the Motion was filed on September 19, 2019, such that it is untimely.

It is true that, “[f]or good cause, the trial judge may extend the time for filing a motion for attorney’s fees in the absence of a stipulation or for a longer period than allowed by stipulation.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1702(d).) However, no evidence of “good cause” was provided. In fact, Defendant altogether rejects the contention that the Motion was filed late by attempting to seize upon a typographical error in Plaintiff’s Opposition.

Because the Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is untimely, it is denied without prejudice.