Arco v. OneWest Bank FSB CA4/3

Filed 9/23/16 Arco v. OneWest Bank FSB CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

CHRISTOPHER ARCO,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G052110

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2014-00738695)

ONEWEST BANK FSB, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andrew P. Banks, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Rick L. Raynsford and Rick L. Raynsford for Plaintiff and Appellant. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis, David R. Zaro, Joshua A. Del Castillo, and Tim C. Hsu for Defendant and Respondent.

Christopher Arco appeals from a judgment after the trial court sustained OneWest Bank FSB’s (OneWest) demurrer without leave to amend Arco’s first amended complaint. Arco argues the trial court erred by sustaining OneWest’s demurrer because the various statutes of limitations had not run and the doctrine of judicial admission was inapplicable. Neither of Arco’s contentions has merit, and we affirm the judgment. FACTS On August 7, 2014, Arco filed a complaint (Original Complaint) against OneWest alleging the following causes of action: (1) libel; (2) intentional interference with prospective economic relations; (3) negligent interference with prospective economic relations; (4) intentional interference with contractual relationships; and (5) negligent interference with contractual relationships. The facts, as alleged by Arco, can be succinctly stated as follows: In 2010, OneWest, in retaliation for Arco’s attempt to save his home from foreclosure, erroneously reported to credit agencies that Arco had suffered four foreclosures, which damaged his personal and business credit, hamstrung his business, and forced him to relinquish his majority ownership stake in his business.1 OneWest filed a demurrer, arguing the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA; 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.), preempted Arco’s claims and the statutes of limitations had run. Arco filed opposition to the demurrer. OneWest filed a reply to the opposition. The trial court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend based on applicable statutes of limitations, declining to address the federal preemption argument based on the uncertainty of the law. In December 2014, Arco filed a first amended complaint (FAC) alleging the same five causes of action and adding a sixth—violations of Civil Code sections