Plaintiff's Motion to Determine Property Value
person to "bring an original action or cross-complaint in the superior court for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises" in cases of actual controversy. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1060.)
"The court may refuse to exercise the power granted by this chapter in any case where its declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at the time under all the circumstances." (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 1061.)
Because the Court has granted the petition for writ of mandate, the request for declaratory judgment is "unnecessary and superfluous." (Hood v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 319, 324.)
Accordingly, Petitioner/Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief is DENIED. Petitioner to submit a proposed order within 5 court days that confirms to this ruling.
CV-26-000780 - CHAHAL, NAHAR SINGH vs NEWREZ LLC - Defendant's Demurrer to Complaint - SUSTAINED, in part, without leave to amend, SUSTAINED, in part, with leave to amend. Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.
Based on the papers submitted and the matters subject to judicial notice, the Court finds that Defendant US BANK's Demurrer to the Complaint is well-taken and should be SUSTAINED in its entirety, without leave to amend. Plaintiff has failed to oppose the arguments made on demurrer by this defendant and has likewise failed to demonstrate how amendment would cure the deficiencies in the pleading.
With regard to the arguments on behalf of NEWREZ, LLC, the Court finds as follows: Defendant Newrez, LLC's Demurrer to the First Cause of Action is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Plaintiff makes no argument in opposition to Defendant's showing, by way of judicial notice, that the provisions of Civ. Code Sec. 2923.5 are inapplicable to Newrez, LLC based on the provisions of Civ. Code Sec. 2924.18(b). (Civ. Code Sec. 2923.5(g).)
Further, it appears that the only remedy for a violation of Civil Code Sec. 2923.5 is a postponement of the foreclosure sale. Once the sale has taken place, the statute does not provide any relief. (Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 77; Stebley v. Litton Loan Servicing, LLP (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 522, 526
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?”
Defendant Newrez, LLC's Demurrer to the Second, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend, as follows: With regard to the Second and Third Causes of Action, the allegations of the Complaint fail for lack of specificity with regard to the Defendant's purported material violations of Civ. Code Sec.Sec. 2923.7 and 2924.9, as well as failure to sufficiently allege resultant economic harm as required by Civ. Code Sec. 2924.12(b).
With regard to the Fourth Cause of Action for violation of Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq., the allegations likewise fail based on Plaintiff's failure to sufficiently allege the statute-based claims in the preceding causes of action.
Lastly, with regard to the Fifth Cause of Action for Wrongful Foreclosure, the claim fails because Plaintiff has failed to allege a tender. The Court notes Plaintiff's argument that the transaction was void, and tender excused, due to Defendant's violations of the above-referenced Civil Code provisions. However, as noted above, Civ. Code Sec. 2923.5 provides no remedy other than postponement of the foreclosure sale and cannot be asserted post-foreclosure. As for Civ. Code Sec.Sec. 2923.7 and 2924.9, these give rise to claims for economic damages and statutory penalties post-foreclosure (Civ. Code Sec. 2924.12(b)), not an unwinding of the foreclosure sale, and they say nothing about excuse of tender.
Plaintiff shall file his amended pleading within 20 days.
CV-26-003769 - GENESIS FAMILY ENTERPRISES INC vs GERRARD, FRANK WALTER - Petitioner's Petition for Judicial Declaration of Abandonment - HEARING REQUIRED.
The Court notes Petitioner's submission of proof of service of the Petition and Notice of Continued Hearing on 7-17-26 via posting and certified mail; however, the attached receipts do not demonstrate that return receipt was requested, as is required by Civ. Code Sec. 798.61(c)(1). Counsel shall appear to address this issue.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge David Hood in Department 24: CV-25-001822 - NAITAMAR, SELMANE vs NAITAMAR, HAJER - Plaintiff's Motion to Determine Property Value - HEARING REQUIRED.
The court notes that Mr. John Hillas, appointed by the court as the appraiser in this matter, has not filed his sworn/verified appraisal with the Court. (Civ. Proc. Code Sec. 874.316(d)). The court requires an update as to the status of the said appraisal.
The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA: UD-26-000675 - ABSHER, KIMBERLY vs GROGAN, CODY - Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings - HEARING REQUIRED.