Case Name: Jatinder Mann vs Cenlar FSB et al
Case No.: 19CV342126

This is an action for wrongful foreclosure. On February 4, 2019, plaintiff Jatinder Mann (“Plaintiff”) filed his Complaint against defendants Cenlar FSB, CitiMortgage, Inc., and Quality Loan Service asserting causes of action for:

1) Violation of Civil Code § 2923.4;
2) Violation of Civil Code § 2923.5
3) Violation of Civil Code § 2923.6;
4) Violation of Civil Code § 2923.7;
5) Violation of Civil Code § 2924.11;
6) Violation of Civil Code § 2924.17;
7) Intentional misrepresentation;
8) Breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and
9) Breach of fiduciary duty (against defendant Select Portfolio Services, Inc.);
10) Violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200, et seq.

Defendant Cenlar seeks judgment as to each of the twelve causes of action, asserting that the Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against it.
Cenlar’s motion for judgment on the pleadings

Cenlar challenges the Complaint on the ground that it fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against it. Cenlar argues that “judicial estoppel” arises from Plaintiff and his associates’ repeated and dismissed bankruptcy filings, and that necessary and indispensable parties have not been named.

The Court finds that Cenlar has not established inconsistent statements made by Plaintiff that would lead to judicial estoppel, and the motion is DENIED on this ground.

However, as to Cenlar’s second argument, individuals who claimed that Plaintiff transferred to them partial interests in the real property that is the subject of this foreclosure action filed bankruptcy proceedings in order to stop the foreclosure. Those individuals who are allegedly part owners of the real property have not been named in this action, and the Court finds that they are necessary and indispensable parties, and the motion is GRANTED on this ground.

Plaintiff has filed no opposition or response to the demurrer. Plaintiff fails to demonstrate how the complaint may be amended as against defendant Cenlar. (See Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349 (stating that “Plaintiff must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading”), quoting Cooper v. Leslie Salt Co. (1969) 70 Cal.2d 627, 636; see also Hendy v. Losse (1991) 54 Cal.3d 723, 742 (stating that “the burden is on the plaintiff… to demonstrate the manner in which the complaint might be amended”).) As Plaintiff did not file any opposition to the motion, he has failed to sustain his burden to show facts that would support an amended pleading.

However, the alleged defect of misjoinder of parties is one that theoretically can be corrected. Plaintiff is ORDERED to appear at the hearing to advise the Court how the complaint can be amended to validly state claims. If he fails to do so, the motion for judgment on the pleadings by Cenlar will be granted without leave to amend.

The Court will prepare the order.