Sroka v. Bank of America CA4/3

Filed 2/28/13 Sroka v. Bank of America 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

GARY SROKA,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G047005

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2011-00514754)

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, David R. Chaffee, Judge. Affirmed. Law Offices of Daniel G. Brown and Daniel G. Brown for Plaintiff and Appellant. Bryan Cave, Stuart W. Price, Sean D. Muntz and Damian P. Richard for Defendant and Respondent.

* * *

Plaintiff Gary Sroka sued defendant Bank of America, N.A. for a violation of the unfair competition law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.; all further statutory references are to this code unless otherwise stated), alleging defendant’s initiation of a nonjudicial foreclosure was fraudulent because defendant no longer had any interest in the loan after it was securitized. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment entered after defendant’s demurrer to the first amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. He argues he had standing to challenge defendant’s right to foreclose based on its alleged lack of interest in the loan and that such lack of interest was sufficient to support the unfair competition action. He further contends he adequately pleaded actual harm and if nothing else he should be allowed to amend. Finally, he asserts he should be able to maintain the action based on a public policy basis. We conclude plaintiff did not sufficiently plead actual harm and there is no reasonable possibility he could amend. We affirm on that basis.