Sandhu v. Wells Fargo Bank CA1/1

Filed 10/7/13 Sandhu v. Wells Fargo Bank CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

MANJIT SANDHU et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A136361 v. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. HG11601966) Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Manjit Sandhu and Satinder Dhillon appeal from a judgment entered in favor of defendant Wells Fargo Bank after the trial court granted the bank‘s ex parte application to dismiss their lawsuit, following demurrers to plaintiffs‘ original and first amended complaints and denial of a motion to file a second amended complaint. We conclude the trial court properly dismissed the action, and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2005, plaintiffs obtained a loan from Wells Fargo to buy a home in Hayward, California. They defaulted on the loan, and in 2011, the property was sold to Federal National Mortgage Association. Plaintiffs filed suit shortly thereafter, naming Wells Fargo and the Mortgage Association as defendants. The trial court sustained defendants‘ demurrer to the complaint, and granted plaintiffs leave to amend. The court noted at the outset of its order that plaintiffs had not opposed the court‘s tentative ruling.

1

Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, naming only Wells Fargo as defendant and asserting five causes of action: rescission pursuant to Civil Code section 1632,1 rescission pursuant to sections 1550, 1567, 1568, and 1689, declaratory relief, quiet title, and rescission pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.). These claims were based on plaintiffs‘ assertion that nearly five years prior, Wells Fargo tricked them into signing loan documents with an interest rate to which they did not agree. Wells Fargo interposed another demurrer. On May 29, 2012, the trial court heard and sustained the bank‘s demurrer to the first amended complaint, again noting plaintiffs had not contested the court‘s tentative ruling. The court‘s written order enumerated the specific reasons for its ruling as to each of the five causes of action. The court allowed plaintiffs leave to amend their second cause of action (rescission pursuant to § 1691) and fourth cause of action (for quiet title), and also provided specific instructions for amending the complaint. With regard to the rescission claim, plaintiffs were granted leave to amend ―to clearly allege (1) facts demonstrating that Plaintiffs are willing and able to repay the full amount of the loan secured by the subject property, as required by Civil Code § 1691(b), , and (2) the required elements of a fraud claim with the required degree of particularity, including who made the alleged misrepresentations, to whom, what they said or wrote, and when. . . .‖ (Id.) The trial court also stated, ―[i]n amending, Plaintiffs may not base this claim on any allegation that the Defendant failed to inform them that they did not qualify for or could not afford the subject loan. . . . Nor may Plaintiffs base this claim on Defendant‘s alleged failure to possess the subject promissory note . . . .‖ With regard to the quiet title claim, plaintiffs were granted leave to amend ―to clearly allege (1) all the elements of a Quiet Title Claim required by Code of Civil Procedure § 761.020; (2) that Plaintiffs are currently willing and able to repay the full amount of the debt secured by the subject property . . . ; and (3) facts demonstrating some legally cognizable basis for determining that Plaintiffs‘ claim to the subject property is superior to that of Defendant.‖