Ghalehtak v. Fay Servicing CA1/1

Filed 2/9/22 Ghalehtak v. Fay Servicing CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publi- cation or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or or- dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

FARID GHALEHTAK et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, A161795

v. (Alameda County FAY SERVICING, INC., Super. Ct. No. RG18898872) Defendant and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Plaintiffs and appellants have spent years challenging the nonjudicial foreclosure of their residential property. They filed two cases in federal court in an effort to halt foreclosure, both of which were unsuccessful.2 They then

This case is appropriately resolved by way of memorandum opinion 1

pursuant to pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1, subdivisions (1) and (3). In their first case (no. 3:15-cv-05821-LB), filed in December 2015, 2

plaintiffs sought “rescission” of their mortgage for alleged “defective securitization,” asserting numerous federal and state law claims. The federal court dismissed all the federal claims on the merits and declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. In their second case (no. 3:17-cv-05976-EMC), filed in October 2017, plaintiffs challenged the then-ongoing nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings on the ground Fay Servicing, LLC and Trustee Corps lacked clear title to their property due to an allegedly improper assignment of the deed of trust from

1

turned to the state courts and filed the instant case after the trustee’s sale, asserting numerous state law causes of action. The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrer on a variety of grounds, including res judicata and collateral estoppel. We affirmed the judgment of dismissal on January 28, 2020 (No. A156227).3 Ten months after we affirmed the judgment of dismissal, plaintiffs, representing themselves, returned to the trial court with a “Motion For Equitable Relief From Judgment On The Grounds Of Fraud.”4 (Some capitalization omitted.) Plaintiffs maintained that “through a review of documents recorded in their chain of title on their Property,” they found “new” recorded instruments that Sahara Property Management, LLC was “not the true beneficiaries” of the note and deed of trust. According to plaintiffs, these new records showed that defendants had procured the judgment of dismissal through factual misrepresentations about the foreclosure process. Sahara apparently entered the picture at the time of the trustee’s sale, in May 2018. The “Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale,” prepared on instructions by Wilmington Trust, National Association, inadvertently named Sahara as the