top of page

Decades of Appellate Success

Deutsche Bank v. ETrade Bank, et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  Our office appealed a judgment entered against the client by the trial court following a multi-day bench trial.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the trial court erred in failing to issue a statement of decision pertaining to several affirmative defenses that we had raised at trial and which were wholly ignored by the trial court in issuing its final ruling and judgment; these affirmative defenses included laches, statute of limitations, etc.

  • Outcome:  The Court of Appeal agreed with our arguments and reversed the matter to the trial court to issue a statement of decision consistent with the Court of Appeal’s opinion, which found our affirmative defenses to be meritorious bars to the plaintiff’s claims.

Juan Lopez v. Bank of New York Mellon, et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The borrower appealed the trial court’s order sustaining our demurrers without leave to amend and entering a judgment of dismissal in favor of our clients.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the trial court’s order and judgment was proper since: (1) the lender’s use of a fictitious business name was not unlawful; (2) the borrower lacked standing to challenge the foreclosing beneficiary’s authority to foreclose; (3) the borrower did not suffer any prejudice resulting from the alleged defects in the foreclosure proceedings; (4) the borrower failed to comply with the “tender rule”; (5) the borrower had not properly alleged a cause of action for quiet title; and (6) the borrower had not properly alleged a cause of action for cancellation of instruments.

  • Outcome:  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the demurrers and judgment of dismissal in our favor and we prevailed.

HB Park, LLC v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s order sustaining our demurrers without leave to amend and entering a judgment of dismissal in favor of our clients.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the trial court’s order and judgment was proper since: (1) whether MERS was required to be registered with the California Secretary of State and the effect of any failure to register; (2) the plaintiff lacked standing to allege any defects with respect to the non-judicial foreclosure proceedings; (3) the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the “tender rule” barred their claims; (4) our clients did not violate Civil Code section 2923.5; and (5) the denial of leave to amend was proper.

  • Outcome:  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the demurrers and judgment of dismissal in our favor and we prevailed.

Niki-Alexander Shetty v. Greenpoint MTA Trust, et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiff appealed the District Court’s order granting our motion to dismiss a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and refusing to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff’s non-federal claims.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that: (1) the plaintiff lacked standing to bring this case; (2) the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel; (3) the plaintiff’s challenges to the lender’s authority to foreclose was without legal merit; (4) the non-judicial foreclosure proceedings at issue were compliant with California law; (5) that the FDCPA claim failed because our client was not a “debt collector”; and (6) that the Court’s failure to exercise jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s non-federal claims was proper.

  • Outcome:  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment of dismissal in our favor and we prevailed.

Amy Arlene Turner, et al. v. Seterus, Inc., et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The borrower and her non-borrower spouse appealed the trial court’s order sustaining our demurrers without leave to amend and entering a judgment of dismissal in favor of our clients.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the trial court’s order and judgment was proper since: (1) the non-borrower spouse lacked standing to raise any claim pertaining to the loan and/or related foreclosure proceedings; (2) the borrower had not properly alleged a cause of action for fraud; (3) the borrower had not properly alleged a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation; (4) the borrower had not properly alleged a cause of action for negligence as the loan servicer and loan beneficiary owes the borrower no duty of care; (5) the borrower had not properly alleged a cause of action for negligence per se as Civil Code section 2924, et seq. did not create a duty of care; (6) the borrower did not have a viable cause of action for an alleged violation of Civil Code section 2924c; (7) the borrower had not properly alleged a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress; (8) the borrower had not properly alleged a cause of action for breach of contract; (9) the borrower had not properly alleged a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure; and (10) the borrower had not properly alleged a cause of action for unfair business practices.

  • Outcome:  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the demurrers and judgment of dismissal in our favor in part, and reversed in part.  The matter is pending in the trial court.

US Bank v. Denise Beatty

  • Subject of Appeal:  The borrower appealed the trial court’s order granting our client’s unlawful detainer motion for summary judgment.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the trial court’s order and judgment was proper since: (1) our motion established all prima facie elements of an unlawful detainer complaint under Code of Civil Procedure 1161a; (2) the non-judicial foreclosure sale complied with Civil Code section 2924, et seq.; (3) that defendant had not established any affirmative defense; (4) the defendant’s arguments concerning loan securitization were irrelevant; (5) we were not obligated to establish “just cause” for the eviction, in compliance with local “rent control” ordinances.

  • Outcome:  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment and judgment in our favor and we prevailed.

Robert Daniels v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The borrower appealed the trial court’s order granting our client’s motion for summary judgment.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the trial court’s order and judgment was proper since: (1) the borrower failed to provide an opposing separate statement of undisputed material facts; (2) summary judgment was proper on the borrower’s cause of action for breach of contract; (3) summary judgment was proper on the borrower’s cause of action for breach of implied covenant; (4) summary judgment was proper on the borrower’s cause of action for unfair business practices; (5) summary judgment was proper on the borrower’s cause of action for declaratory relief; (6) summary judgment was proper on the borrower’s cause of action for an accounting; (7) summary judgment was proper on the borrower’s cause of action for violation of State and Federal “debt collection” statutes.

  • Outcome:  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the motion for summary judgment and we prevailed.

Domingo Villas, Inc., et al. v. Rick Tarnutzer, et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  Our office appealed the trial court’s denial of our special motion to strike the complaint (i.e., anti-SLAPP motion) and related order denying evidentiary objections.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the trial court’s order was improper since: (1) the complaint was based on protected activity, namely providing legal advice, filing a lawsuit, and filing other papers in various lawsuits; (2) the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a probability of prevailing on the merits of any claim involving protected activity; (3) the litigation privilege bars many of the plaintiff’s causes of action; (4) the loan accounting was proper.

  • Outcome:  The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling denying our special motion to strike (i.e., anti-SLAPP motion) and we prevailed.

Terry Ratterree v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The borrower appealed the trial court’s order sustaining our demurrers and entering a judgment of dismissal in our favor.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the trial court’s order was proper since: (1) the borrower failed to state a cause of action under Civil Code section 2924.17; (2) the borrower failed to state a cause of action for “robo-signing”; (3) the borrower failed to show how he had been prejudiced as a result of the alleged defects in the non-judicial foreclosure proceedings; (4) the borrower failed to plead any actual damages; (5) the borrower’s causes of action were federally preempted; (6)  the borrower failed to state a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure; (7) the borrower failed to comply with the “tender rule”; (8) the borrower failed to state a cause of action for “dual tracking” under Civil Code section 2923.6.

  • Outcome:  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the demurrers and judgment, and we prevailed.

Shelly Max v. Federal National Mortgage Association, et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The borrower appealed the trial court’s order sustaining our demurrers without leave to amend and subsequent judgment of dismissal.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the trial court’s order and judgment was proper since: (1) res judicata barred the borrower’s causes of action; (2) failure to state a cause of action against loan beneficiary; (3) the borrower had failed to allege a viable cause of action for cancellation of instruments; (4) the borrower had failed to allege a viable cause of action for an accounting; (5) the borrower had failed to allege a viable cause of action for unfair business practices; (6) the borrower had failed to allege a viable cause of action to set aside the trustee’s sale; (7) the borrower had failed to allege a viable cause of action for declaratory relief; (8) the borrower had failed to allege a viable cause of action for slander of title.

  • Outcome:  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the demurrers and we prevailed.

Jennifer De Hoog, et al v. The Mortgage Law Firm, PLC

  • Subject of Appeal:  The borrower appealed the trial court’s order sustaining our demurrers and entering a judgment of dismissal in our favor.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the trial court’s order was proper since: (1) the “reconveyance” of the deed of trust was fraudulently created by the borrower and ineffective; (2) the reconveyance was void; (3) the foreclosure proceedings did not violate the statute of limitations; (4) the borrower failed to comply with the “tender rule”; (5) the borrower failed to state a cause of action for cancellation of instruments; (6) the borrower failed to state a cause of action for quiet title; (7) the borrower failed to state a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure; (8) the borrower failed to state a cause of action for unfair business practices; (9) the borrower failed to state a cause of action for slander of title as the foreclosure proceedings were privileged.

  • Outcome:  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the demurrers and judgment, and we prevailed.

Cynthia Brown v. Craig Ronald Dimond, et al

  • Subject of Appeal:  The borrower appealed the trial court’s order sustaining our demurrers, entering a judgment of dismissal in our favor, and denying the borrower’s motion to vacate this judgment.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the trial court’s order was proper since: (1) the ruling on the motion to vacate was a non-appealable order; (2) the borrower’s attempts to improperly take our clients’ default were without basis and non-appealable; (3) the borrower’s causes of action were barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel; (4) the borrower’s causes of action were barred by the doctrine of res judicata; (5) no cause of action lies based on the borrower’s allegations of improper loan securitization; (6) the borrower failed to comply with the tender rule; (7) the borrower failed to plead a viable cause of action for quiet title; (8) the borrower failed to plead a viable cause of action for credit reporting errors; (9) the borrower failed to plead a viable cause of action for unfair business practices.

  • Outcome:  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the demurrers and judgment, and we prevailed.

Irma J. Grant v. Seterus, Inc.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The borrower appealed the District Court’s order granting our clients’ motion to dismiss.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the District Court’s order was proper since: (1) the borrower failed to state a cause of action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (2) the borrower failed to state a cause of action under Civil Code sections 2924.17 and 2924; (3) the borrower failed to state a cause of action for cancellation of instruments; (4) the borrower failed to state a cause of action for unfair business practices.

  • Outcome:  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s order granting our clients’ motion to dismiss, and we prevailed.

Ronald Hills, et al. v. Indymac Mortgage, et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s grant of our motion to dismiss without leave to amend.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) the court properly took judicial notice of various documents in support of its ruling; (2) the court properly held that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitation and the plaintiffs were not entitled to a finding of equitable tolling; (3) the plaintiffs have not stated a claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; (4) the plaintiffs have not stated a claim under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

  • Outcome:  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed, and we prevailed.

In Re: Antonio Papic & Marta Papic

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiffs appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s order denying their motion to hold our clients in contempt of court for an alleged violation of the discharge injunction.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) foreclosure on a secured lien is not a violation of the discharge injunction; (2) plaintiffs did not demonstrate a violation by “clear and convincing” evidence; (3) the deed of trust was not eliminated as a result of the discharge; (4) the plaintiffs were not entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court reversed (there was a change in the law during the appeal period), but we prevailed back at the trial court.

BONY v. Cynthia Brown

  • Subject of Appeal:  The borrower appealed the trial court’s grant of our motion for summary judgment in an unlawful detainer action against the borrower.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) the trial court was properly vested with subject matter jurisdiction; (2) the borrower was properly served a “notice to quit”; (3) the sale was conducted in compliance with Civil Code section 2924; (4) title was duly perfected; (5) collateral estoppel precludes any challenge to the foreclosure proceedings.

  • Outcome:  The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and we prevailed.

Liliya Walsh, et al. v. Fannie Mae, et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiffs appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s order granting our motion to remand the case back to the state court.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal; (2) the appeal was untimely; (3) the appeal was moot; (4) appellants’ removal of the case was untimely; (5) the Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction over the case; (6) remand was proper on equitable grounds; (7) the Bankruptcy Court’s award of attorneys’ fees was proper.

  • Outcome:  The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed, and we prevailed.

Homefront Escrow, Inc. v. William J. Manetta, Jr., et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The defendants appealed the trial court’s judgment and award of attorneys’ fees entered in favor of our client.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) the trial court correctly determined that our client was the “prevailing party”; (2) the award of fees and costs was legally justified.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court affirmed, and we prevailed.

Dennis Cleek v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s order sustaining our demurrers and entering judgment in favor of our clients.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) the plaintiff had not stated any cause of action for wrongful foreclosure; (2) the plaintiff had not stated any cause of action for breach of the implied covenant; (3) the plaintiff had not stated any cause of action for violation of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act; (4) the plaintiff had not stated any cause of action for unfair business practices; (5) denial of leave to amend was proper.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court affirmed, and we prevailed.

Nouri v. Mortgage Lender Services, LLC and Oakridge Management, LLC

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s order sustaining our demurrers without leave to amend and entering judgment in our favor.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action under Civil Code section 2924; (2) the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue various claims; (3) the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action for fraudulent concealment or conspiracy; (4) the plaintiffs failed to state a tort cause of action; (5) the plaintiffs failed to comply with the tender rule; (6) the court properly took judicial notice of various documents in support of its ruling; (7) the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action for declaratory relief; (8) denial of leave to amend was proper.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court affirmed, and we prevailed.

Robert Cissna v. Charles Barnes, et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s order granting our special motion to strike the plaintiff’s complaint (i.e., anti-SLAPP motion).

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) the complaint seeks to impose liability based on “protected activities”; (2) the court correctly applied Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16; (3) the plaintiff failed to provide evidence demonstrating a probability of prevailing on his claims; (4) the litigation privilege bars the plaintiff’s claims.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court affirmed, and we prevailed.

The Grace Foundation v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The cross-defendant appealed the trial court’s denial of her special motion to strike the cross-complaint filed by our office.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) allegations in a complaint are not considered “evidence”; (2) the cross-complaint was not based on “protected activity”; (3) we demonstrated a substantial probability of prevailing on our claims.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court affirmed, and we prevailed.

Neil Smith v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s order sustaining our demurrers without leave to amend and entering judgment in our favor.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) the plaintiff failed to comply with the tender rule; (2) the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for quiet title; (3) the plaintiff lacks standing to raise any arguments concerning the securitization of the loan; (4) plaintiff’s allegations are contradicted by judicially noticeable facts; (5) there is no support for the allegation that the assignment of the loan by MERS was invalid; (6) the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any prejudice as a result of the alleged wrongful foreclosure.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court affirmed, and we prevailed.

FNMA v. Shirley and Danny Wilson

  • Subject of Appeal:  Our office appealed the trial court’s order sustaining demurrers of a defendant-borrower to our complaint.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was flawed since: (1) our complaint was not barred by the statute of limitations; (2) the complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a cause of action for quiet title; (3) the complaint alleges sufficient facts to state a cause of action to impress an equitable lien; (4) the trial court erred in denying leave to amend.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court overturned the trial court’s order.

Daniel R. Shuster, et al. v. BAC Home Loans Servicing,et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s order sustaining our demurrers without leave to amend and entering judgment in favor of our clients.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) the omission of a named trustee in a deed of trust does not render the deed of trust unenforceable; (2) the subsequent appointment of a trustee remedied any initial failure to designate a trustee in the deed of trust; (3) the plaintiff's authorities interpreting grant deeds were inapposite; (4) the trial court properly granted our request for judicial notice; (5) there is no merit to the “holder in due course” argument; (6) the foreclosing beneficiary was properly assigned the deed of trust; (7) the plaintiffs suffered no prejudice as a result of the alleged wrongful foreclosure.

  • Outcome:  In a published decision, the appellate court affirmed.  This was a case wherein the appeal clarified a significant issue of the law that was unclear, hence the published decision.

Secrest v. Security National

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiffs appealed a trial court judgment in favor of our clients following an extensive trial.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) plaintiffs waived any arguments concerning mistake, reformation, and estoppel; (2) the appellate court should abstain from considering the plaintiffs’ arguments concerning mutual mistake and reformation; (3) plaintiff waived consideration of all but one issue on appeal; (4) the alleged oral agreement is barred by the statute of frauds; (5) plaintiffs’ claims of mutual mistake and reformation are contradicted by the parties’ prior stipulation; (6) there is no factual support for plaintiffs’ claims of mistake and reformation; (7) plaintiffs have not disputed the reinstatement amount; (8) the subsequent forbearance agreement is not enforceable; (9) the doctrine of uncertainty does not apply; (10) res judicata bars prosecution of the appeal.

  • Outcome:  In a published decision, the appellate court affirmed and we prevailed (CA Real Property Treatises all cite this case as a significant case regarding the parole evidence rule as it relates to deeds of trust).

Kevin Dupree v. Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. 

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiff appealed a trial court order sustaining our demurrers and entering judgment in favor of our clients.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) plaintiff failed to comply with the tender rule, which precludes his causes of action for quiet title and wrongful foreclosure; (2) plaintiff’s causes of action are predicated on conclusory allegations; (3) plaintiff failed to plead a cause of action for quiet title; (4) plaintiff failed to plead a cause of action for injunctive relief; (5) the trial court correctly denied leave to amend; (6) plaintiff waived various arguments on appeal; (7) MERS was vested with sufficient authority to act on behalf of the lender; (8) plaintiff’s allegations concerning the securitization of the loan do not yield a cause of action; (9) the trial court properly denied the plaintiff’s ex parte motion to vacate the judgment.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court affirmed, and we prevailed.

Sweeting v. Kishaba, et al. 

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s order granting our motion for summary judgment on behalf of our client.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) there were no errors in the service of our motion for summary judgment despite plaintiff’s substitution of attorney having been served but not filed; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff a continuance of the hearing on the motion; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s subsequent motion for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473; (4) any purported error by the trial court was harmless.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court affirmed, and we prevailed.

Emertha Jones v. Fremont Investment and Loan, et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiff appealed a trial court order sustaining our demurrers and entering judgment in favor of our clients.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) the plaintiff has not alleged facts to state a cause of action under the Truth in Lending Act, whether seeking damages or rescission; (2) the plaintiff has not alleged facts to state a cause of action under Civil Code section 2923.5; (3) the plaintiff has not alleged facts to state a cause of action under Civil Code section 2923.6; (4) the plaintiff has not alleged facts to state a cause of action for unfair business practices; (5) the plaintiff has not alleged facts to state a cause of action for breach of the implied covenant; (6) the plaintiff has not alleged facts to state a cause of action under the state or federal Fair Debt Collection Practices statutes; (7) the plaintiff has not alleged facts to state a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court affirmed, and we prevailed.

Larry B. Moore v. Access Mortgage Group Corporation, et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiff appealed a trial court order sustaining our demurrers and entering judgment in favor of our clients.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) plaintiff failed to overcome the presumption of correctness; (2) any error by the trial court was harmless; (3) plaintiff lacks standing to pursue various causes of action; (4) plaintiff failed to plead a cause of action for fraud; (5) plaintiff failed to plead a cause of action for “intentional tort”; (6) the trial court properly denied leave to amend.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court affirmed, and we prevailed.

Charles Barnes v. Robert Cissna

  • Subject of Appeal:  The defendant appealed a default judgment entered against him and in favor of our client.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) the appeal was untimely filed; (2) the appeal is reliant on facts outside of the “record” on appeal; (3) the defendant has waived various issues on appeal for failing to cite to any support in the record; (4) service via publication was proper in this case; (5) the defendant could not move the appellate court to vacate the judgment; (6) the defendant concedes key facts that demonstrate that the appeal is without substantive merit; (7) defendant lacks standing to challenge the sufficiency of evidence introduced at the default “prove-up” hearing.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court affirmed, and we prevailed.

Mauctrst, LLC v. Lonestar Mortgage Services, LLC, et al

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiffs appealed the trial court’s entry of an order of dismissal and an order granting attorneys’ fees in favor of our clients.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) the award of attorneys’ fees was proper as the motion was timely filed; (2) the plaintiffs have not demonstrated any abuse of the trial court’s discretion; (3) the trial court’s orders were based on sufficient evidence.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court affirmed, and we prevailed.

Thomas F. Peterson and Robin R. Peterson v. Foreclosure Consultants, Inc.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s order sustaining our demurrers and entering a judgment of dismissal in favor of our clients.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata; (2) the prior judgment was based on a proper exercise of jurisdiction; (3) the complaint was time-barred.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court affirmed, and we prevailed.

Southern Counties Construction

  • Subject of Appeal:  The defendant appealed a default judgment entered against it and in favor of our client.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) the defendant failed to provide a statement of appealability; (2) the defendant failed to comply with the California Rules of Court; (3) the defendant failed to answer the amended complaint; (4) the defendant’s default constitutes an admission of all allegations in the amended complaint; (5) defendant lacks standing to challenge the sufficiency of evidence introduced at the default “prove-up” hearing; (6) the judgment was not in excess of the amount pled in the complaint; (7) defendant’s argument concerning the status of plaintiff’s contractor’s license fails; (8) the default judgment precluded the assertion of a cross-complaint by defendant.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court affirmed, and we prevailed.

Fremont Investment v. CJ Jones

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiff appealed the trial court’s order sustaining our demurrers and entering a judgment of dismissal in favor of our clients.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) this action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata; (2) the prior judgment was based on a proper exercise of jurisdiction; (3) the complaint was time-barred.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court affirmed, and we prevailed.

FV-1, Inc. v. Pro Value Properties, Inc. et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  Our office appealed the trial court’s entry of judgment in favor of the defendant and against our client.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was flawed since: (1) the cause of action for unjust enrichment had no factual or legal merit; (2) defendant was not given notice of the trial; (3) the plaintiff had improperly rejected a tender of the debt due and owing; (4) the plaintiff is not entitled to any pre-judgment interest; (5) the judgment was improperly in excess of the amount pled in the complaint.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court reversed and we prevailed.

BONY v. Maria Zamora

  • Subject of Appeal:  The borrower appealed the trial court’s entry of judgment on our client’s complaint for unlawful detainer.

  • Issues on Appeal:  On appeal, we argued that the court’s order was proper since: (1) the borrower waived any argument concerning the denial of her motions for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 and 473.5; (2) the borrower failed to demonstrate any error by the trial court in issuing judgment in favor of our client; (3) the appeal was untimely; (4) the borrower waived her arguments by failing to support them with citations to the record on appeal; (5) the borrower’s arguments are based on matters outside the record on appeal.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court affirmed, we prevailed.

In re Salma Merritt - 2David Merritt, et al. v. JP Morgan, et al

  • Subject of Appeal:  The borrower appealed the bankruptcy court’s order granting our motion for in rem relief from the bankruptcy stay.

  • Issues on Appeal:  The borrower argued that the bankruptcy court erred in admitting and considering evidence related to the borrower’s well-documented civil litigation history in finding that in rem relief from stay was appropriate.

  • Outcome:  The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel affirmed the order in its entirety.

Michelle C. Galyardt v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiff was awarded roughly $3,000,000 in punitive damages against SLS and its investor based on alleged fraudulent activity in connection with the borrower’s efforts to obtain Hardest Hit Fund program benefits.  Borrower also obtained a verdict of roughly $900,000 in emotional distress damages.

  • Issues on Appeal:  Whether the punitive damages award should be reversed based on no evidence of managing agent liability, and whether the entire verdict should be reversed because of juror misconduct.

  • Outcome:  The Court of Appeal reversed the entire award of punitive damages, resulting in a reduction of punitive damages of over $3.4M.

Rudie Thomas v. LaSalle Bank Charges, N.A., et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  The borrower appealed the trial court’s entry of judgment in our favor.

  • Issues on Appeal:  The borrower raised several challenges to our client’s standing, ability, and authority to foreclose on the subject loan.

  • Outcome:  The appellate court affirmed the judgment entered in our favor.

Deville Appeal from Denial of Transfer

  • Subject of Appeal:  The borrowers appealed the District Court’s order granting our motion to dismiss without leave to amend (i.e., with prejudice).

  • Issues on Appeal:  The borrower argued that the District Court’s decision was in error and that the allegations in the complaint did not support the order.

  • Outcome:  The 9th Circuit affirmed the order in its entirety.

John Vodonick v. Federal National Mortgage Association 

  • Subject of Appeal:  The plaintiff appealed the District Court’s order granting our motion for summary judgment on his claims to challenge the validity of the foreclosure sale and his right to an easement over our client’s property.

  • Issues on Appeal:  The plaintiff argued that he had presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of material fact, which warranted denying the motion.

  • Outcome:  The 9th Circuit affirmed the order in its entirety.

197 West 39th Street, LLC v. Seterus, Inc., et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  Plaintiff was awarded judgment for declaratory relief and an alleged violation of Civil Code section 2943 based on alleged accounting irregularities and an alleged failure to send a payoff demand.

  • Issues on Appeal:  Whether the plaintiff had standing to pursue its claim for declaratory relief and whether the claim for a violation of Civil Code section 2943 was preempted by the federal Home Owners’ Loan Act (“HOLA”).

  • Outcome:  The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in full, found that Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue its declaratory relief cause of action, as well as finding the that claim for violation of Civil Code section 2943 was preempted by HOLA.

Andrea Hogan v. Gregory Hogan, et al.

  • Subject of Appeal:  Partition matter.  Plaintiff (our client) was awarded an interlocutory judgment whereby she was declared a 1/3 owner of real property.  However, the Court concluded in its interlocutory judgment that Plaintiff was only entitled to the proceeds from the sale of the subject property through partition that represented an increase in the value of the Subject Property from the date she acquired her interest forward.  The evidence at trial was that the property depreciated in value. 

  • Issues on Appeal:  Whether the Court’s judgment was an abuse of discretion and miscarriage of justice because there was no evidence that the Court acted within its equitable discretion in fashioning its remedy of how proceeds were to be distributed.

  • Outcome:  The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in full—our client—and remanded the case for entry of judgment in our client’s favor.

bottom of page