Case Number: VC063558 Hearing Date: June 24, 2014 Dept: SEC

ROMERO v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC.
CASE NO.: VC063558
HEARING: 06/24/14

#4
TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendant COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES and MARK SALADINO’s demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITHOUT
LEAVE TO AMEND. C.C.P. § 430.10(e).

II. Defendants CITIMORTGAGE, INC. and VERDUGO TRUSTEE SERVICE CORP.’s demurrer is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. C.C.P. § 430.10(e).

III. Defendants CITIMORTGAGE, INC. and VERDUGO TRUSTEE SERVICE CORP.’s motion to expunge lis pendens is GRANTED.
C.C.P. § 405.30.

Plaintiff ANGELA ROMERO is ORDERED to pay to defendants and
their counsel of record fees and costs in the amount of $2,225, as she has not demonstrated substantial justification for the lis pendens.

In April 2014, this Court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the complaint with leave to amend, finding that the pleading was largely unintelligible. On April 30, 2014, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint alleging several causes of action arising out of her default on a loan secured by the subject real property.

She claims that defendant Citimortgage negligently failed to include the property taxes in her loan. FAC, ¶7. Subsequently, in October 2013, the Los Angeles County Sheriff noticed a tax auction, but said notice had the improper property address. Her application for a temporary restraining order was heard and denied on October 23, 2013. As she acknowledges in the FAC, the lender defendants cured the deficiency. It does not appear that the County defendants engaged in any wrongdoing. As noted in their demurrer, they are entitled to immunity for actions related to the collection of taxes. Govt. Code § 860.2; Rickley v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1002.

With respect to the default, she contends that defendants denied her request for a loan modification without explaining why. She further contends that the securitization of her loan was improper and that the defendants are not “holders in due course” of the Note. FAC, 7-8.

1st—declaratory relief
It appears plaintiff seeks a declaration that defendants should refund the money she paid for taxes. That is not a proper basis for a cause of action under Code of Civil Procedure section 1060, which allow s a party to seek a judicial determination of future rights or obligations. County of San Diego v. State of Calif. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 580.

With respect to the allegations that the Deed of Trust and Notice of Default are void, plaintiff has not alleged any actionable facts. See Yvanova v. New Century Mort. Corp. (April 25, 2014) 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 448; Keshtgar v. U.S. Bank, N.A (June 9, 2014) 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 498; Gomez v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1149.

2nd—cancellation of instruments
It appears plaintiff seeks to cancel the notice of tax lien, which lien was apparently extinguished. Her request for relief from the tax sale is moot.

The Notice of Default recorded in April 2009 was rescinded in August 2012, well prior to the filing of this action. See RJN, Exh. C, D.

The remainder of the claims, for quiet title, unfair business practices, fraud, accounting and injunctive relief, are equally unintelligible. It is entirely unclear what plaintiff is seeking.

Generally, the Court would allow a party to amend the pleading to cure its defects. Plaintiff here did not file opposition to the demurrers, and thus not demonstrated either an ability or desire to amend the pleading. Accordingly, the demurrers are sustained without leave to amend and the motion to expunge the lis pendens granted.