Sandoval v. Chase Fufillment Center CA5

Filed 4/15/13 Sandoval v. Chase Fufillment Center CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JUAN R. SANDOVAL et al., F064156 Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Super. Ct. No. 11CECG02161) v.

CHASE FULFILLMENT CENTER, N.A., et al., OPINION Defendants and Respondents.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Alan M. Simpson, Judge. Juan Sandoval and Gudelia Sandoval, in pro. per., for Plaintiffs and Appellants. AlvaradoSmith, John M. Sorich, S. Christopher Yoo and Jacob M. Clark for Defendant and Respondent JPMorgan Chase Bank. Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler, Glenn H. Wechsler and Natalie Sperry Mandelin for Defendant and Respondent First American Trustee Servicing Solutions.

* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J. and Kane, J.

-ooOoo- Appellants, Juan Sandoval and Gudelia Sandoval, filed a complaint against respondents, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMorgan Chase) and First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (First American), seeking damages for fraud and negligent misrepresentation in connection with their application for a modification of their home loan. According to appellants, although they provided JPMorgan Chase with all of the requested documents and paid an additional $2,000 per month toward their mortgage for seven months, JPMorgan Chase nevertheless refused to modify the loan and initiated nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings against them. Respondents demurred to the complaint. The trial court sustained the demurrers on the ground that appellants failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Regarding the cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, the court determined that appellants had not alleged that the statements were made with intent to induce reliance or that they actually relied on those statements. The court further determined that appellants had not alleged any of the elements of a cause of action for fraud. The court granted appellants 10 days leave to amend the complaint with the time to run from service of the minute order. Appellants did not file an amended complaint. Thereafter, on respondents’ applications for dismissal, the trial court dismissed the complaint and entered judgments in respondents’ favor. Appellants have appealed from the judgment entered in favor of JPMorgan Chase. According to appellants, they were confused by the ruling on the demurrers and were not aware that they had to file an amended complaint. Further, appellants contend that the trial court delivered its decision on the application for dismissal before appellants were permitted to comment. Appellants acknowledge that they erred but argue that it “was not intentional due to lack of knowledge in the court proceedings” and ask this court “to consider granting the appeal to resolve [JPMorgan] Chase’s inhumane intentional fraud