Civil Tentative Rulings

March 27, 2026

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge John R. Mayne in Department 21:

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 21***

The following is the tentative ruling for a case calendared before Judge Stacy P. Speiller in Department 22:

CV-26-000314 - CHANBRITTON, NARY vs VALCHRIS INVESTMENTS - Defendant Val-Chris Investment’s Demurrer to Complaint - SUSTAINED in part with leave to amend and OVERRULED in part.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is DENIED. The request was not separately filed in compliance with California Rule of Court 3.113(l), and the exhibits referenced in the memorandum were not provided to the Court.

 

For the reasons set forth below, the Demurrer is OVERRULED as to the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Causes of Action. The Demurrer is SUSTAINED as to the Second Cause of Action with leave to amend. Plaintiff shall serve and file any amended complaint no later than 21 days after service of the signed order. Moving Party to submit a proposed order within five court days that conforms to this ruling.

First cause of action: Wrongful Foreclosure

The nonjudicial foreclosure process is governed by statute in California. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2924 et seq.) A notice of default must include a reinstatement amount, i.e., the amount needed to bring the account in good standing. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 2924(a)(1)(D), § 2924c(b)(1).) “The debtor then has a three month reinstatement period to pay the balance due and reinstate the terms of the loan.” (Napue v. Gor-Mey W., Inc. (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 608, 614.)

Defendant VCI contends that the first cause of action for wrongful foreclosure is based in fraud. Accordingly, VCI argues that Plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure claim must fail because it lacks the heightened pleading requirement of specificity, which “requires the plaintiff to allege the names of the persons who made the allegedly fraudulent representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.” (See Demurrer at 3 [citing Tarmann v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 2 Cal.App.4th 153, 157 (citations omitted)].)

Although the first cause of action alleges Defendant “made misleading allegations regarding an extension” (see Compl. ¶ 32), the crux of Plaintiff’s wrongful foreclosure claim is based on VCI’s alleged “fail[ure] to comply with statutory and common-law requirements governing foreclosure by preventing Plaintiff from reinstating the loan despite Plaintiff’s written requests for reinstatement figures.” (See Compl. ¶ 31.) Plaintiff thereby alleges a violation of Civil Code of Procedure § 2924 and its subparts. Thus, no heightened pleading requirement applies to that part of the cause of action, and if part of a cause of action is good, a general demurrer to that portion of the pleading must be overruled. (See Kong v. City of Hawaiian Gardens Redevelopment Agency (2002) 108 Cal.App.4th 1028, 1047; PH II, Inc. v. Superior Court (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1680, 1682.)

For the foregoing reasons, VCI’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s first cause of action for wrongful foreclosure is overruled.

Second Cause of Action: Fraud and Intentional Misrepresentation

When pleading fraud, “a plaintiff must plead facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were made.” (Citizens of Humanity, LLC v. Costco Wholesale Corp. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1, 20 [internal citations and quotations omitted], disapproved of on inapposite grounds by Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 310.) “When the defendant is a corporate defendant, the plaintiff must further allege the names of the persons who made the representations, their authority to speak, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when it was said or written.” (Id.) “There are certain exceptions to the particularity requirement. (Id.) “Less specificity is required when it appears from the nature of the allegations that the defendant must necessarily possess full information concerning the facts of the controversy.” (Id.)

The Complaint alleges that VCI knowingly made false representations of material fact, including misrepresenting that VCI was authorized to communicate with Plaintiff’s first mortgage lender on Plaintiff’s behalf. (Compl. ¶ 36.) According to the Complaint, VCI made such misrepresentations by knowingly utilizing a borrower authorization bearing Plaintiff’s signature that Plaintiff never signed, authorized, or consented to. (Compl. ¶ 37.) The Complaint alleged that Plaintiff was harmed as a result of VCI’s fraud, including the loss of Plaintiff’s home and related damages. (Compl. ¶ 40.)

VCI argues that Plaintiff’s second cause of action for fraud does not meet the applicable pleading standard because the Complaint does not provide facts regarding specific names or dates, nor specify what was said or done. (See Demurrer at 4.)

The Complaint falls short of the heightened pleading requirements. For example, the Complaint does not allege facts describing what specific misrepresentations were made by VCI to Plaintiff’s first mortgage lender (i.e., what was said or done), when they were made, or who relied on the alleged misrepresentations. The Complaint also does not include facts demonstrating causation of how such misrepresentations resulted in damages to Plaintiff.

The Demurrer to Plaintiff’s second cause of action is sustained with leave to amend.

Third Cause of Action: Negligence

VCI contends that the Note and Trust Deed (Exs. 3 and 4 to the Demurrer) demonstrate that VCI is a lender not a servicer. VCI argues that the law bars negligence claims against lenders. According to VCI, if the borrower is suing under the Note or Deed of Trust, then she is suing under a written contract; and the economic loss rule bars the blurring of contractual disputes into negligence damages. (See Demurrer at 5–6.)

Courts have rejected VCI’s proposition. “[T]o the extent a negligence cause of action arises from a statutory duty under the nonjudicial foreclosure statutes (Civ. Code, § 2924 et seq.), we believe the duty is sufficient to support a negligence cause of action.” (Turner v. Seterus, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 516, 535.)

Additionally, VCI did not attach the Note and Trust Deed (Exs. 3 and 4) to the Demurrer. Nor did VCI submit a proper request for judicial notice. Thus, the Court has not been able to consider the Note or Trust Deed. A demurrer must be based on the face of the pleading at issue, facts contained in documents attached to the pleading, or on matters that can be judicially noticed. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 430.30(a); Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Mat’ls Co. (1981) 123 Cal. App. 3d 593, 604.)

Next, VCI argues that it did not handle any aspect of the foreclosure. VCI points to the Notice of Default (Exhibit 5 to the Demurrer) and states that the trustee is Ashwood TD Services, LLC, not VCI. VCI argues that the Complaint fails to state any facts that support VCI conducting the foreclosure. (See Demurrer at 6.) But as discussed above, VCI did not attach the Notice of Default or submit a proper request for judicial notice. Thus, the Court has not been able to consider the Notice of Default.

Further, VCI cites no proposition of law to support its argument that a negligence action cannot be maintained solely because VCI is not the trustee. A party may maintain a negligence action against a loan servicer for breach of a statutory duty. (Turner v. Seterus, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal. App. 5th 516, 535 [reversing, vacating, and overruling trial court’s order sustaining demurrer].) Here, the Complaint alleges that VCI acted as a loan servicer. Thus, a negligence claim is not barred.

VCI’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s third cause of action for negligence is overruled.

Fourth Cause of Action: Unfair Business Practices – Business & Professions Code § 17200

VCI argues that the fourth cause of action is derivative of the other claims and that if the other claims fail, the § 17200 claim fails as well. (See Demurrer at 6.)

Because Plaintiff’s Complaint adequately states a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure and negligence, Plaintiff has stated a cause of action under Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (See Turner v. Seterus, Inc., (2018) 27 Cal. App. 5th 516, 536.)

VCI’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action is overruled.

Fifth Cause of Action: Quiet Title

VCI’s Notice of Demurrer states that VCI is challenging the fifth cause of action because it fails to state a claim and is uncertain. But the memorandum does not contain any argument to support VCI’s Demurrer.

The Demurrer to Plaintiff’s fifth cause of action is overruled

Leave to Amend 

 

Because it appears that Plaintiff may be able to allege a viable cause of action for fraud if the facts underlying the case and the legal allegations were more accurately stated, leave to amend the second cause of action is granted. Plaintiff shall serve and file any amended complaint no later than 21 days after service of the signed order.

Moving Party to submit a proposed order within five court days that conforms to this ruling.

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Marie Silveria sitting on assignment in Department 23:

CV-25-000613 - LOPEZ, CORRINA PAULA vs DUNHOUSE, ROBERT FRANCIS, III - Plaintiff’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - DENIED, without prejudice.

Counsel has again failed to submit proof of service of the moving papers on the client. In addition, the supporting declaration and proposed order remain incomplete in that they fail to identify all pending proceedings in the matter.

UD-25-001237 - BAUTISTA, FELIPE vs MENDEZ, DANIEL - Defendants’ Motion to be Relieved as Counsel - DENIED, without prejudice.

Proof of service demonstrates insufficient notice. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).)

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Judge Sonny S. Sandhu in Department 24:

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 24***

The following are the tentative rulings for cases calendared before Commissioner Jared D. Beeson in Department 19 located at the Turlock Division at 300 Starr Avenue, Turlock, CA:

***There are no Tentative Rulings for Department 19***