WILLIAMS vs SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INCORPORATED

23CV039128: WILLIAMS vs SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INCORPORATED 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WELLS FARGO BANK NA (Defendant) CRS# 811025673282 in Department 517

Tentative Ruling - 07/21/2026 Keith Fong

The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication filed by WELLS FARGO BANK NA on 12/24/2025 is Granted.

PARTIES TO APPEAR. Zoom is acceptable.

Defendant First American Title Company’s unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment is DROPPED as moot. Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal of Defendant First American Title Company on June 15, 2026. Dismissal was entered on the same date.

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee on behalf of the holders of Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II, Inc., Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding, Trust 2007-AR3, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2007-AR3’s unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

On or about December 29, 2006, Plaintiff Earlene Williams (“Plaintiff”) obtained a loan from First California Mortgage Company against real property located at 5034 Heyer Avenue in Castro Valley, California (“the Property”). (Trust’s Undisputed Material Facts (“TUMF”) 1.) The loan was secured by a deed of trust recorded in January 2007. (Id.)

On August 15, 2017, First American recorded a Notice of Default. (TUMF 6.)

On or about March 8, 2018, the beneficial interest in the deed of trust was assigned to Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee on behalf of the holders of Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II, Inc., Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding, Trust 2007-AR3, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2007-AR3 (“the Trust”). (TUMF 3.)

A restatement quote dated October 29, 2019, was issued to Plaintiff stating that the loan’s restatement amount was $243,496.12. (TUMF 7.)

On June 21, 2023, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“SPS”), the servicing agent for the loan on behalf of the Trust, issued a payoff statement to Plaintiff, in the amount of $1,216,525.03. (TUMF 5, 9.) SPS did not receive payment in the amount necessary to reinstate or pay off the loan. (TUMF 10.)

On June 22, 2023, First American recorded a Notice of Trustee’s Sale, scheduled for August 10, 2023. (TUMF 8, 11.) Auction.com is an online platform used to advertise foreclosure sales, 23CV039128: WILLIAMS vs SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INCORPORATED 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WELLS FARGO BANK NA (Defendant) CRS# 811025673282 in Department 517 pursuant to the direction of trustees or beneficiaries. (TUMF 13.) The Notice further stated that information regarding postponements of the sale may not be reflected on the website. (Id.)

Neither SPS nor the Trust instructed First American or auction.com to postpone the trustee’s foreclosure sale on the Property scheduled for August 10, 2023, or to publish that the sale date was changed in any way. (TUMF 15.) To First American’s knowledge, auction.com did not publish a notice of postponement or cancellation of the sale. (TUMF 17.) Neither First American, the Trust, nor SPS used or authorized a website called “Property Radar” to publish any information regarding the trustee sale at issue here. (TUMF 18.)

On August 10, 2023, the Property sold at the trustee’s sale. (TUMF 19.)

Plaintiff initiated this action on July 20, 2023. The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed on November 29, 2023 alleges (1) Violation of Civil Code § 2924g; (2) Promissory Estoppel; (3) Fraud; (4) Wrongful Foreclosure; and (5) Unfair Business Practices.

On February 27, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel. Since that time, Plaintiff has represented herself in this action.

On October 7, 2025, the Court sustained the Trust’s unopposed Demurrer to the First Cause of Action, without leave to amend, and overruled the Trust’s Demurrer as to the other causes of action.

First American and the Trust separately move for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication, as to the claims asserted in the First Amended Complaint. The hearing on the motions was set for March 24, 2026. Plaintiff failed to file any oppositions to either motion. Plaintiffs indicated that they opposed the motions and asked for more time to file their opposition briefs. The Court thus ordered that Plaintiffs file their oppositions by April 21, 2026. To accommodate this extension, the Court continued the dates for the mandatory settlement conference, pretrial conference and trial. (3/24/2026 Order at p. 2.)

On April 13, 2026, Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for an additional 60-day extension to file their oppositions. Taking into account Plaintiffs’ pro se status and the policy favoring adjudicating matters on the merits, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ request and extended the deadline to June 19, 2026. To accommodate the second extension, the Court again continued the dates for the mandatory settlement conference, pretrial conference and trial. (4/15/2026 Order at 1-2.) The Court’s Order included the following warning: “No additional extensions will be granted. Should Plaintiff fail to file and serve her oppositions, the Court will resolve the pending motions as unopposed.” (Id. at p. 1.)

To date, Plaintiffs have failed to file any oppositions to the pending summary judgment motions. However, on June 4, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a request for dismissal as to Defendant First American Title Company which was entered on the same date.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

23CV039128: WILLIAMS vs SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INCORPORATED 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WELLS FARGO BANK NA (Defendant) CRS# 811025673282 in Department 517

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850.) “That is because of the general principle that a party who seeks a court’s action in his favor bears the burden of persuasion thereon.” (Id.) Further, “the party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” (Id.) “There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.” (Id.)

A defendant moving for summary judgment may demonstrate that the plaintiff’s cause of action has no merit by showing that one or more elements of the cause of action cannot be established. (McKenna v. Beesley (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 552, 564.)

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The Trust’s unopposed Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED. Notice is taken of the recorded documents relating to the Property. (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 265.)

DISCUSSION

The Trust moves for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff lacks evidence to show a disputed issue of material fact as to any of the remaining claims against them.

Promissory Estoppel – Second Cause of Action

A claim for promissory estoppel requires (1) a promise clear and unambiguous on its terms; (2) reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; (3) reasonable and foreseeable reliance; and (4) the party asserting estoppel is injured by reliance. (Aceves v. U.S. Bank, N.A. (2011) 192 Cal.App4th 218, 225.)

The Trust contends that the Second Cause of Action fails because there was no promise made by Defendant to Plaintiff, and it did not direct or authorize auction.com to show that the sale was canceled, postponed, or rescheduled. The Trust submits the sworn declaration of Charles Gorosabel, a staff attorney at auction.com. Gorosabel states that upon his review of the records relating to the foreclosure sale of the Property, auction.com did not receive any instruction from First American that the sale would be postponed, canceled, or rescheduled. (Gorosabel Decl. ¶

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

23CV039128: WILLIAMS vs SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INCORPORATED 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WELLS FARGO BANK NA (Defendant) CRS# 811025673282 in Department 517 13.)

As discussed above, despite proper notice and service of the motion pursuant to C.C.P. §§ 437c(a)(2) and 1005, and the Court’s continuance pursuant to Plaintiff’s request at the March 24, 2026 hearing, there is no Opposition on file from Plaintiff. Plaintiff thus has not met her burden of production. Plaintiff’s failure to file an opposition admits the truth of the matters set forth in the moving papers. (Kurtz, Richards, Wilson & Co. v. Insurance Communicators Marketing Corp. (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1249, 1263; Niederer v. Ferreira (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 1485, 1498; Schroeter v. Lowers (1968) 260 Cal.App.2d 695, 700.)

The undisputed evidence establishes that the Trust did not make a promise to Plaintiff regarding the sale of the Property, as required for Plaintiff’s promissory estoppel claim.

Summary adjudication of the Second Cause of Action is GRANTED.

Fraud – Third Cause of Action

The Third Cause of Action alleges concealment, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, and false promise theories of fraud. (FAC ¶¶ 33-46.)

The elements of a claim for fraudulent concealment are (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact; (2) by a defendant with a duty to disclose the fact to plaintiff; (3) defendant intended to defraud plaintiff; (4) plaintiff was unaware and would not have acted had plaintiff known of the concealed fact; and (5) plaintiff sustained damage as a result of the concealment.

A claim for intentional misrepresentation requires (1) a misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to induce reliance; (4) actual and justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. (Chapman v. Skype Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 217, 230-231.) “The essential elements of a court for negligent misrepresentation are the same except that it does not require knowledge of falsity but instead requires a misrepresentation of fact by a person who has no reasonable grounds for believing it to be true.” (Id. at p. 231, internal citations omitted.)

“To maintain an action for deceit based on a false promise, one must specifically allege and prove, among other things, that the promisor did not intend to perform at the time he or she made the promise and that it was intended to deceive or induce the promisee to do or not do a particular thing. (Building Permit Consultants, Inc. v. Mazur (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1414, internal citations omitted.)

The undisputed evidence presented by the Trust establishes that the foreclosure sale took place pursuant to the Notice of Trustee’s Sale, and there was no misrepresentation or concealment of the sale date made to Plaintiff by the Trust. Based on the record before the Court, there is no evidence that either the Trust made a misrepresentation to Plaintiff or concealed material facts from her regarding the foreclosure sale.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

23CV039128: WILLIAMS vs SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INCORPORATED 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WELLS FARGO BANK NA (Defendant) CRS# 811025673282 in Department 517

Summary adjudication of the Third Cause of Action is GRANTED.

Wrongful Foreclosure – Fourth Cause of Action

The elements of a claim for wrongful foreclosure are (1) the trustee or mortgagee caused an illegal, fraudulent, or willfully oppressive sale of real property pursuant to a power of sale in a mortgage or deed of trust; (2) the party attacking the sale was prejudiced or harmed; and (3) where the trustor or mortgagor challenges the sale, the trustor or mortgagor tendered the amount of the secured indebtedness or was excused from tendering.

There is a common law rebuttable presumption that a foreclosure sale has been conducted regularly and fairly. (6 Angels, Inc. v. Stuart-Wright Mortgage, Inc. (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1279, 1284, internal citations omitted.) A party asserting wrongful foreclosure must present substantial evidence of prejudicial procedural irregularity. (Id.)

The Trust argues that the undisputed evidence establishes that the sale was not postponed, canceled, or rescheduled. Moreover, Plaintiff did not tender the amount of secured indebtedness or was excused from tendering.

The undisputed evidence presented by Defendant establishes the absence of a triable issue of material fact as to Plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure claim. As such, summary adjudication of the Fourth Cause of Action is GRANTED.

Unfair Business Practices – Fifth Cause of Action

The UCL prohibits “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising ....” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. Each of the three “prongs” under the UCL – (1) unlawful, (2) unfair, and (3) fraudulent – creates an independent theory of liability. (Cel-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel. Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180.) UCL claims must be pled with “reasonable particularity.” (Gutierrez v. Carmax Auto Superstores California (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1234, 1261.)

As Plaintiff’s unfair business practices claim is premised and dependent upon her other claims, there is no dispute of material fact nor evidence to support such a dispute to support Plaintiff’s claim under Business & Professions Code § 17200.

Summary adjudication of the Fifth Cause of Action is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Defendant has met its burden of proof of the claims alleged against it in the operative First Amended Complaint. The facts set forth in Defendant’s separate statement are undisputed, and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

23CV039128: WILLIAMS vs SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INCORPORATED 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WELLS FARGO BANK NA (Defendant) CRS# 811025673282 in Department 517 there is no opposition contesting the facts therein.

Defendant First American Title Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DROPPED as moot as Plaintiff has dismissed Defendant from this action.

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee on behalf of the holders of Structured Asset Mortgage Investments II, Inc., Bear Stearns Mortgage Funding, Trust 2007-AR3, Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 2007-AR3’s unopposed Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

By or before August 14, 2026, Defendant is ORDERED to submit a proposed judgment. (Blauser v. Dubin (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 918.)

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 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

23CV039128: WILLIAMS vs SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INCORPORATED 07/23/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WELLS FARGO BANK NA (Defendant) CRS# 811025673282 in Department 517 +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