Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint
26CV171747: BANKS vs DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, et al. 07/02/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint; filed by DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, a New York corporation (Defendant) + CRS# 174147632312 in Department 517
Tentative Ruling - 06/17/2026 Keith Fong
The Demurrer filed by SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., A UTAH CORPORATION, DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, a New York corporation on 04/03/2026 is Sustained without Leave to Amend.
Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, In Trust For Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-4s unopposed Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Teresa Ann Banks (Plaintiff) initiated this action on February 18, 2026 against Defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Trustee, In Trust For Registered Holders of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-4, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006-4 (Deutsche Bank, as Trustee) Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS), and all persons unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in real property common described as 420, 424, 426 Medford Avenue in Hayward, California 94541 adverse to Plaintiffs title. The Complaint alleges (1) Wrongful Foreclosure; (2) Quiet Title; (3) Declaratory Relief; (4) Cancellation of Instrument; (5) Injunctive Relief; (6) Conversion; (7) Fraud; (8) Constructive Fraud; (9) Deceit; (10) Violation of the Unfair Competition Act; and (11) Unjust Enrichment.
Plaintiff generally alleges that she obtained financing and obtained a promissory note and deed of trust regarding her ownership of real property located at 420, 424, 426 Medford Avenue in Hayward, California (the Property). (Compl. ¶¶ 11-12.) Plaintiff alleges that Deutsche Bank, as Trustee, has initiated foreclosure proceedings on the Property. (Compl. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff contends that Deutsche Bank, as Trustee, did not own the promissory note despite representations of ownership, and Plaintiff made payments pursuant to that misrepresentation. (Compl. ¶¶ 14-22.) Plaintiff alleges that Deutsche Bank, as Trustee, is attempting to exercise the power of sale contained in the deed of trust via SPS. (Compl. ¶ 24.)
Deutsche Bank, as Trustee and SPS (collectively, Defendants) demur to the Complaint on the following grounds: (1) Plaintiff should be judicially estopped from asserting causes of action not disclosed in her bankruptcy case; (2) Plaintiff fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action as to each cause of action.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Despite proper service and notice of the demurrer, there is no opposition on file from Plaintiff. The Court construes Plaintiffs silence as a concession as to the merits of the motion. (Sexton v. 26CV171747: BANKS vs DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, et al. 07/02/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint; filed by DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, a New York corporation (Defendant) + CRS# 174147632312 in Department 517 Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410; Aronow v. LaCroix (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1039, 1048; Shapiro v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc of U.S. (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 75, 94.)
LEGAL STANDARD
A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of factual allegations in a complaint. (Title Ins. Co. v. Comerica Bank-California (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 800, 807.) A plaintiff must plead facts as are necessary to acquaint a defendant with the nature, source and extent of her claims to provide defendant with notice of the issues sufficient to enable preparation of a defense. (Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 570.) A court should not sustain a general demurrer unless the complaint liberally construed fails to state a cause of action on any theory. (Kramer v.
Intuit Inc. (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 574, 578.) On a demurrer, the court accepts the truth of material facts properly pleaded in the operative complaint, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Hacker v. Homeward Residential, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 270, 276.) Facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be. (Id. at p. 280, citations omitted.)
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
As to Exhibits 1-20, Defendants request for judicial notice is GRANTED. (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 265.) As to Exhibits 21-29, notice is GRANTED IN PART. Notice is taken only of the existence of court documents and pleadings, and not the truth of factual matters asserted in the documents. (People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal. 4th 261, 280.)
DISCUSSION
Defendants contend that Plaintiff is judicially estopped from raising claims here that were not previously raised in her bankruptcy matters. As the Court finds this unopposed argument to be dispositive of the Complaint, the Court does not reach Defendants other arguments raised in the Demurrer.
In completing a bankruptcy schedule, a debtor should list any legal claims against a creditor whose wrongful conduct caused the bankruptcy; otherwise, an action on the claim is barred. (Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 1613-1614 (Hamilton), citing Gottlieb v. Kest (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 110, 136.) In Hamilton, the Court of Appeal affirmed the lower courts ruling sustaining a lenders demurrer to a borrowers complaint, which held that the borrowers failure to disclose, in earlier Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceedings, the existence of his breach of contract and fraud claims against the lender, barred the borrower from litigating those claims later, pursuant to the doctrines of res judicata and estoppel.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
26CV171747: BANKS vs DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, et al. 07/02/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint; filed by DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, a New York corporation (Defendant) + CRS# 174147632312 in Department 517
Pursuant to Exhibit 22 of Defendants RJN, Plaintiff filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Part 4 of the petition required Plaintiff to describe her financial assets. (RJN Exh. 22, p. 16.) As relevant to the instant proceedings, the petition asked Plaintiff if she had any claims against third parties, whether or not you have filed a lawsuit or made a demand for payment. (Id., p. 17.) Plaintiff responded, No. (Id.) The petition also asked if Plaintiff had [o]ther contingent and unliquidated claims of every nature, including counterclaims of the debtor and rights to set off claims. (Id.) Plaintiff responded, No. (Id.) As Plaintiff did not disclose any claims in her earlier bankruptcy petition, she is estopped from asserting such claims here.
Separately, the Court finds that Plaintiffs failure to oppose the demurrer is ground from sustaining the demurrer. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c) [A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.]; Sharp v. Union Pacific R.R. Co. (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 357, 361 [By not filing written opposition to the motion, plaintiff consented to the granting of the motion.].)
Although the Court typically grants leave to amend to afford a plaintiff the opportunity to cure pleading defects, leave to amend is not required where, as here, Plaintiff has failed to identify any facts that could be alleged to dispute Defendants contentions.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the record before the Court, and for the reasons stated above,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendants unopposed Demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
A judgment of dismissal shall be entered and the Clerk shall dispose of the action.
PLEASE NOTE - Any contest to the tentative ruling will be heard on Thursday, July 2 at 2:30 PM in Dept. 517.
HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?
THROUGH ECOURT
Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 p.m. (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
26CV171747: BANKS vs DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, et al. 07/02/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint; filed by DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, a New York corporation (Defendant) + CRS# 174147632312 in Department 517 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed"
BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4pm (but by Noon if possible) at least one (1) court day before the scheduled hearing.
BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.
ZOOM LOG-IN INFORMATION FOR DEPARTMENT 517 IS BELOW.
Join ZoomGov Meeting https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16181989812
Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 One tap mobile +16692545252,,16181989812# US (San Jose) 16692161590,,16181989812# US +(San Jose)
Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) +1 669 216 1590 US (San Jose) +1 551 285 1373 US +1 646 828 7666 US (New York) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812 Find your local number: https://www.zoomgov.com/u/ad6x1ZH23d
Join by SIP 16181989812@sip.zoomgov.com
Join by H.323 161.199.138.10 (US West) 161.199.136.10 (US East) Meeting ID: 161 8198 9812