Carpio v. JP Morgan Chase Bank CA3

Filed 4/23/21 Carpio v. JP Morgan Chase Bank CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

TOMAS MERCADO CARPIO IV, C087825

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 34201700215212 ) v.

JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Five years after his home was sold in a foreclosure sale, plaintiff Tomas Mercado Carpio IV sued defendants JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. and others for causes of action including wrongful foreclosure and breach of contract. The trial court sustained, without leave to amend, defendants’ demurrer to Carpio’s second amended complaint, finding the

1

applicable statutes of limitations had run. Carpio now appeals contending the statutes of limitations was tolled under the delayed discovery rule and equitable tolling.1 We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Second Amended Complaint Carpio’s second amended complaint alleged six causes of action.2 In substance, he alleged he obtained a mortgage loan in 2005. In late 2011, an assignment of deed of trust transferred the deed to one of the defendants. The assignment deed was executed, notarized, and recorded. In early 2012, Carpio’s house was sold in a foreclosure sale. Carpio’s allegations take issue with the assignment of deed, contending, through various allegations, that the assignment of deed was invalid. He also alleged that he entered into a “standardized contract” with one of the defendants for a “temporary trial modification” of his mortgage loan. And “[d]espite Plaintiff’s efforts, Defendant . . . ignored its legal obligation to refrain from the practice of dual tracking while Plaintiff’s Loan Modification Application was under review.” He wrote that he “sought a loan modification from Defendant …, only to have [his] home[] wrongfully, oppressively and illegally sold out from under [his] feet . . . .” Carpio also alleged that his causes of action are not time barred because the statutes of limitations were tolled. He wrote that through equitable tolling, the court could in the interest of justice toll the statutes of limitations, which would prevent the