Andrew J. Mase is the Managing Attorney, Litigation, for The Ryan Firm.  Mr. Mase joined the Ryan Firm in October 2015 and oversees all cases throughout the Firm.  Mr. Mase’s concentration of practice concerns mortgage lender and servicer litigation and advisement, complex bankruptcy proceedings, and appeals.

 

Additionally, Mr. Mase is a trial attorney and has first chaired numerous bench and jury trials concerning real estate, secured debt, foreclosure, loan servicing, and unlawful detainer litigation.  Most recently, Mr. Mase successfully defended a large nationwide consumer loan servicer and investor against wrongful foreclosure, homeowner bill of rights, and quiet title claims by obtaining a unanimous 12-0 jury verdict on all claims against the financial institution defendants. 

 

Mr. Mase has enjoyed successful victories for his lending, loan servicing, and property investment clients at both the state and federal levels.  Notable victories include:

 

• Marshalled a secured creditor through a complex Chapter 7 entity bankruptcy involving two pieces of luxury real estate in Los Angeles worth approximately $9,000,000.00.  The properties cross-collateralized the secured creditor’s loan.  Based on his arguments and strategy, Mr. Mase obtained two separate orders granting relief from stay to foreclose on the cross-collateralized real property.  Additionally, Mr. Mase defeated the Chapter 7 Trustee’s motion to sell real property.  To boot, Mr. Mase defeated three requests for temporary restraining orders to prevent foreclosure brought by parties affiliated by the Chapter 7 debtor in various courts.​

• Obtained judgment for possession on behalf of institutional REO Company in complex post-foreclosure unlawful detainer involving the procedures and policies of San Francisco’s Below Market Rate (“BMR”) program.  The matter was transferred to The Ryan Firm and Mr. Mase after other law firms were unable to obtain possession.

• Obtained complete—12 to 0—defense verdict in jury trial related to allegedly improper credit reporting and debt collection.  Matter involved the collection of mortgage debt and furnishing of credit information of a junior lien left unsecured after foreclosure of a senior lien.

• Obtained summary judgment for national mortgage loan servicer in United States District Court in matter involving an allegedly wrongfully cancelled loan modification after the borrower had performed.  [Lacayo v. Seterus, Inc., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116756 (C.D. Cal. April 30 2018).]

• Obtained summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, for national mortgage servicer in Los Angeles Superior Court relating to allegations of complex wrongdoing concerning the accounting of borrower’s impound account.  (Daniels v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC (2019) Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 5120.)

• Obtained summary judgment for possession of $19,000,000 residential property in Malibu, CA.

• Obtained summary judgment for possession of $3,000,000 multifamily residential property in Venice Beach, CA in protracted post-foreclosure unlawful detainer litigation concerning pre- and post-judgment claimants.

• Obtained summary judgment in favor of foreclosure purchaser against allegations of forcible detainer of $3,000,000 residential property in Manhattan Beach, CA.

• Obtained judgment for possession of $7,000,000 residential property in Agoura Hills, CA after bench trial.  Matter concerned a post-foreclosure unlawful detainer where no less than seven claimants tried to stall the proceedings with unlawful bankruptcies, removals to federal court, and intentional misrepresentations to the Court.

• Obtained dismissal for national loan servicer, affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, of case brought by former sympathetic borrower against loan servicer based on violations of the Truth in Lending Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and California wrongful foreclosure law.  (Grant v. Seterus, 771 Fed. Appx. 362 (9th Cir. 2019).

• Order of dismissal after demurrer, affirmed at Court of Appeal, for institutional lender and servicer related to borrower’s wrongful foreclosure allegations.  (DeHoog v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2019) Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2874.)

• Dismissal of borrower’s claims related to violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”) through motion for summary judgment in Northern District of California.  (Kaplan v. Seterus, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 129077.)

• Obtained judgment of possession, defended on appeal, for longstanding Orange County eviction of $1,000,000 residential property.

• Obtained bench trial judgment for possession in Los Angeles County’s oldest eviction file dating back to 2012.  Matter was referred to The Ryan Firm and Mr. Mase after prior firm could not obtain judgment.

• Obtained summary judgment in favor of national GSE against foreclosure purchaser related to claims of improperly noticed nonjudicial foreclosure sale.  Judgment upheld on appeal.  (Vodonick v. Federal National Mortgage Assoc. 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97616.)

​

2022 was a banner year for Mr. Mase’s appellate practice.  In 2022, Mr. Mase reversed four judgments after trial and obtained affirmance of an order granting summary judgment:

​

• Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, reversal of over $2,800,000.00 in punitive damages awarded against national residential loan servicer for an alleged wrongful foreclosure.  (Galyardt v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC et. al., E074731.

• Fourth District, Division Three, reversal of interlocutory judgment of partition that effectively stripped The Ryan Firm’s client of any benefits as an equal co-tenant of the real property under the erroneous judgment.  (Hogan v. Hogan, G059131.)

• Second District Court of Appeal, Division Seven, reversal of judgment after bench trial that significantly compromised the secured lien of a national Government Sponsored Enterprise and awarded damages.  (1197 West 39th Street, LLC v. Seterus, Inc., B299994.)

• Second District Court of Appeal, Division Eight, reversal of interlocutory order approving sale of real property emanating from the Probate Court of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, whereby the Probate Court exceeded its jurisdiction by authorizing the sale of real property that is not, and was not, property of the Probate Estate.  (Gaines v. Longwood 18, LLC, B311210.)

• Second District, Division Two, affirmance of order granting summary judgment in favor of The Ryan Firm’s client.  The client was accused of defrauding property investors in a residential real estate transaction concerning a multi-million dollar residential development project.  Judgment was fully affirmed on the basis that the plaintiff lacked standing to prosecute any of its contract or tort based causes of action.  The Ryan Firm’s client was further awarded all of its attorney fees incurred in defending the case.  (Triwest Homes II, LP v. Ostayan et al, B307708.)”

 

As managing attorney, Mr. Mase takes ownership in the development of The Ryan Firm’s junior attorneys.  As stewarded by Mr. Mase, The Ryan Firm’s professional culture demands unconditional effort, constant performance improvement, and honest self-critique. 

​

Mr. Mase received his juris doctor from Chapman University School of Law.  At Chapman, Mr. Mase enjoyed success competing on the school’s moot court and negotiation teams, winning the National Sports Law Negotiation Competition and placing as a finalist in the ABA National Moot Court Competition.

​

Prior to law school, Mr. Mase attended the University of California at Berkeley.  At Berkeley, Mr. Mase competed on the Cal Varsity Rugby team and was a part of three national championship winning campaigns.  Outside of his practice, Mr. Mase enjoys spending time with his wife, son, and daughter, watching rugby, and cycling.

​