JUN ZHANG VS. MARTIN LEE ENG ET AL

SF Superior Court - Real Property / Housing Dept 501 - CUD24676980 - June 16, 2026 Hearing date: June 16, 2026 Case number: CUD24676980 Case title: JUN ZHANG VS. MARTIN LEE ENG ET AL Case Number: | | CUD24676980 | Case Title: | | JUN ZHANG VS. MARTIN LEE ENG ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-06-16 09:30 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Defendant Martin Lee Engs Notice Of Intention To Move To Set Aside And Vacate Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion For Jummary Judgment [Ccp 663] And Move For A Different Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment | Rulings: | | Real Property/Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for June 16, 2026. Line 4.

DEFENDANT MARTIN ENG Notice Of Intention To Move To Set Aside And Vacate Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion For Jummary Judgment [Ccp 663] And Move For A Different Order Denying Plaintiffs Motion For Summary Judgment is DENIED.

The Court's decision to grant Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment was not based on an "[i]ncorrect or erroneous legal basis for the decision, not consistent with or not supported by the facts." Defendant argues that Plaintiff did not provide admissible evidence to support the fact that the Trustee's Sale was held in accordance with Civil Code 2924 and the sale was duly perfected, because the only evidence offered was the recorded deed, and the recitals therein.

However, Civil Code 2924(c) specifically provides: "A recital in the deed executed pursuant to the power of sale of compliance with all requirements of law regarding the mailing of copies of notices or the publication of a copy of the notice of default or the personal delivery of the copy of the notice of default or the posting of copies of the notice of sale or the publication of a copy thereof shall constitute prima facie evidence of compliance with these requirements and conclusive evidence thereof in favor of bona fide purchasers and encumbrancers for value and without notice."

By the express language of Civil Code 2924(c), the recorded deed provided by Plaintiff is sufficient prima facie evidence to establish the element of compliance with Civil Code 2924. Having properly provided prima facie evidence, Plaintiff met his initial burden under CCP 437c(p) and the burden accordingly shifted to Defendant to raise a triable issue of material fact regarding this or any other element of Plaintiff's case. Defendant offered no evidence of any irregularities in the sale. Summary judgment was therefore properly granted under CCP 437c.

The written reply filed June 15, 2026 and written sur-reply filed June 15, 2026 are both stricken, as these filings were not authorized by the June 11, 2026 Order advancing the hearing date on this motion. =(501/CFH)