Opp. Def. Judical Notice Final

5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

Melbourne B Weddle State Bar 34858 Patric HR Weddle State Bar 201465 P O Box 593 Santa Barbara Ca 93102 Telephone (805) 966-1038 Facsimile (805) 966-9758 Attorneys for PlaintiffBemice Jacobs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRlCT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRlCT OF CALIFORNIA-SAN JOSE DIVISION

BERNICE JACOBS

Plaintiff

vs

BANK OF AMERICA NA BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING LP REshyCONTRUST COMPANY FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIAshyTION AND DOES 1-100 inclusive

Defendants

Case No 10-cv-04596-HRL

OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISshyMISS COMPLAINT 12(b (6)

Jury Trial Demanded

TELEPHONE CONFERENCE REshy

QUESTED

To DEFENDANTS BANK OF AMERICA NA (BANA) BAC HOME LOANS

SERVICING LP RECONTRUST COMPANY FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

ASSOCIATION (FNMA)

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONfENTS

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (MOD) 2

I ARGUMENT 2

A Complaint Has Probable Validity In Proving Facts 2

B Tender Is Not A Requirement When It Would Be Inequitable

To Do So 4

C Borrower Has A Private Right Against Lender For Failure

To Modify Loan 6

D Claim OfBreach Implied Covenant Of Good Faith And

Fair Dealing Is Proper 7

E Claim For Equitable And Injunctive Relief Is Properly Averred 9

F Elements Of Fraud Are Properly Plead 10

G A Present And Actual Controversy Exists Between Defendant

And Plaintiff Requiring A Judicial Declaration 11

H A Present And Actual Controversy Exists Betweenmiddot

Defendant And Plaintiff Requiring A Judicial Declaration 12

II CONCLUSION 13

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss i

5

10

15

20

25

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

3 Case Authorities Page

4

Abdullah v United Sav Bank 43 CalApp4th 1101 1009 (1996) 12

6 Argabright v United States 35 F3d 1476 1479 (9th Cir 1996) 2

7 Arnolds Management Corp v Eischen 158 CalApp3d 575 (1984) 4

8 Balistreri v Pacifica Police Dept 901 F2d 696 699 (9th Cir 1988) 2

9 Barker v Riverside County Office ofEducation 4

584 F3d 821 824 (9th Cir 2009)

11 Baypoint Mortgage Corp v Crest Premium Real Estate etc Trust 13

12 (1985) 168 CalApp3d 818 [214 Cal Rptr3d 531]

13 Bisno v Sax (1959) 175 CaLApp2d 714 [346 P2d S14J 13

14 California State Restaurant Assoc v Willow 7

(1976) 129 Cal Rptr 824 58 CA 3d 340

16 Caravantes v California Reconveyance Co 2010 WL 4055560 13

17 Carma Developers Inc v Marathon Development California Inc 8

18 (1992) 2 Cal4lh 342371-372

19 City ofCotati v Cashman (2002) 29 Cal4th 69 79 11

Clegg v Cult Awareness Network 18 F3d 752 (9th Cir 1994) 2

21 Coles Dept Store v First Bank (NA)-Billings 240 Mont 226 9

22 Connors v Home Loan Corp 2009 WL 1615989 from San Diego 6 7

23 Darensburg v Metropolitan Transp Commn 13

24 2006 WL 167657 at 2 (ND Cal Jan20 2006)

Disabled and Blind Action Committee ofCalifornia v Jenkins 7

26 (1974) 44 CA3d 74

27

28

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss ii

5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)

Page

Egan v Mutual oOmaha Ins Co supra 24 Cal3d at p 818 8

Farmers v Countrywide Home Loans 6 7

2009 WL 189025 (SDCal 2009)

Garcia v Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC 12

2010 WL 1881098 (NDCal)

GoTocom Inc v The Walt Disney Co 9 10

202 F3d 1199 1210 (9th Cir 2000)

Housley v US (9th Cir Nev 1994) 35 F3d 400 401 23

Humboldt Say Bankv McCleverty 161 Cal 285 291 119 P 82 (1911) 6

Karlsen v Am Say amp Loan Assn 15 Cal App3d 112 (1971) 4 12

Kingv California 784 F2d 910913 (9th Cir 1986) 2

Los Angeles Equestrian Ctr Inc v City oLose Angeles 8

17 CalAppAth 434 447 21 CalRptr2d 313 (1993)

Mabry v Superior Court 185 Cal App 4th 208226 (July 2010) 67

Marsu B V v Walt Disney Co (9h Cir) 185 F3d 932 8

Mayfield v Vanguard Say amp Loan Assn 5

710 FSupp 143 149 (ED Pa 1989)

More v Calkins (1895) 84 Cal 177 13

Nichols v Deutsche Bank National Trust Company 10

2007 US Dist LEXIS 86223

Paul v Howard University 9

754 A2d 297 145 Ed Law Rep 702 (DC 2000)

North Star Intl v Arizona Corp Commn 4

720 F2d 578 581 (9th Cir 1983)

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss iii

5

10

15

20

25

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (continued)

2 Page

3 Rodriguez v Litton Loan Servicing LP No 09-cv-0029 5

4 2009 US Dist LEXIS 431432009 WL 1326339

at E D Cal May 12 2009)

6 Roe v Anderson 134[3d 1400 1402 (9th Cir 1998) 10

7 Rosenthal v Great Western Fin Securities Corp 6

8 14 Cal 4th 394 415 (1996)

9 Savers Federal Sav and Loan Ass n v Home Federal Say 9

and Loan Ass n 721 F Supp 940 945 (WD Tenn 1989)

11 Shepard v Quality Siding amp Window Factory 5

12 730 F Supp 1295 (D Del 1990)

13 Stockton v Newman (1957) CalApp2d 558 [307 P2d 56J 13

14 Sun Microsystems Ini v Microsoft Corp 10

188 F3d 1115 1119 (9th Cir 1999)

16 Inre Stuart 367 BR 541 552 (Bankr ED Pa 2007) 5

17 Travellers Intern AG v Trans World Airlines Inc 8

18 41 F3d 1570 (2d Cir 1994)

19 Wells Fargo v~ Jordan 914 NE2d 204 (Ohio 2009) 13

Wheatv Thomas 209 Cal 306 (1930) 10

21 Yamamoto v Bank oNew York 329 F3d 1167 1171 (9th Cir 2003) 5

22 Restatement Authorities

23 Restatement (Second) oContracts sect 205 8

24 Statutory Authorities

California Civil Code

26 Section 29235 7 12

27 Section 29236 2 7

28 Section 1572 211

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss iv

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (MOD)

Defendants with hubris fraud and contempt have sought to make the Court a party

to their fraudulent conduct by asking the Court to accept as true such Documents as Deshy

fendants EXHIBIT C the Substitution of Trustee As more fully set forth in Plaintiffs

Opposition to Judicial Notice Defendants seek to perpetuate a fraud on the Court as the

signatures on Defendants Exhibit C are obviously forged Defendants MOD should be

dismissed in its entirety As a result of the predatory lending practices used against her

Plaintiff filed her Complaint for (1) Civil Code sect 29236 (2) Bus amp Prof Code sect 17200

(3) Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (4) Injunctive Relief (5) Civil

Code sect 1572 (6) Fraud (7) Declaratory Relief (8) Intentional Misrepresentation (9) Wrongshy

ful Foreclosure With the exception of the cause of action against FNMA which should be

dismissed there is a present and actual controversy between the parties which requires a

judicial determination

I ARGUMENT

A Complaint Has Probable Validity In Proving Facts

A complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plainshy

tiff can prove no set of facts in support of her claim which would entitle her to relief

Housleyv US (9th Cir Nev 1994) 35 F3d 400401 All allegations of material fact in

the complaint are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to plaintiff Arshy

gabright v United States 35 F3d 1476 1479 (9th Cir 1996) The Complaint includes a

short plain statement of the basis for relief Fed Rule Civ Proc 8(a) The Complaint

contains cognizable legal theories sufficient facts to support cognizable legal theories and

seeks remedies to which plaintiff is entitled Balistreri v Pacifica Police Dept 901 F2d

696 699 (9th Cir 1988) King v California 784 F2d 910 913 (9th Cir 1986) Moreover

the legal conclusions in the Complaint can and should be drawn from the facts alleged

and in tum the court should accept those conclusions Clegg v Cult Awareness Network

18 F3d 752 (9th Cir 1994)

2


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

Last of all Plaintiffs complaint contains claims and a set of facts susceptible to

proof in support ofher claim entitling her to relief Housley v us (9th Cir Nev 1994) 35

F3d 400 401 Therefore the MOD should be denied

The MOD states that [Plaintiffs] complaint is littered with duplic~tive boilerplate

allegations (PI MOD) Boilerplate is text that can be reused in new contexts or applicashy

tions without being changed much from the original It means standardized commonplace

stereotyped unvaried Perhaps when Defendants see so many lawsuits raising the same

issues of fraud lack of standing forgery perjury etc they all start to look alike BANA

seeks to harvest millions of houses across America without producing any paper from its

vaults that would support its claims

Here are some of the boilerplate items in the Complaint from numbered parashy

graphs in the Complaint that BANA characterizes as commonplace and unvaried

21 Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that after her loan was origishy

nated and funded was sold on multiple occasions bundled into a group ofTrust Deeds and

subsequently sold to investors as a Derivative Mortgage Backed Security and that

therefore none of these defendants and each of them owned this loan or Note and cannot

be and are not the Beneficiary or lawfully appointed trustee and have no right to declare a

default to cause notices of default to issue or to be recorded or to foreclose on Plaintiffs

interest in the subject property Defendants and each of them were not the note Holder or

the Note holder in due course or any Beneficiary at any time in regards to this loan

151 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants and each of them presented a loan to Plaintiff

whereby Defendants represented that she did qualify for ordinary underwriting and that

the loan was within Plaintiffs personal financial needs and limitations given the confidenshy

tial financial information that Plaintiff shared with Defendants however the truth is that

the loan payments exceeded Plaintiff established income

BANA wants to take real property without offering any proof showing that it is the

owner of property and whether it still holds a beneficial interest in the promissory note It

is no wonder that all those lawsuits are beginning to look so much alike If it is unclear

3


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

who owns the mortgage clear title to the property itself cannot be conveyed If for examshy

pIe BANA were permitted to foreclose on the property a subsequent buyer could not be

sure of clear title if grantor BANA did not have the right to foreclose on the house in the

first instance

The material allegations in the Complaint are teeming with triable issues A motion

to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) (6) tests the pleading only It tests

neither the evidence nor matters extrinsic to the complaint North Star Intl v Arizona

Corp Commn 720 F2d 578 581 (9th Cir 1983) The court must accept as true all reashy

sonable inferences which may be drawn from the material allegations in the complaint

Barker v Riverside County Office ofEducation 584 F3d 821 824 (9th Cir 2009)

The Complaint alleges that BANA cannot prove it is authorized to take her home and

CRC is under a duty to re-convey the Deed of Trust to Plaintiff

B Tender Is Not A Requirement When It Would Be Inequitable To Do So

Defendants argue that tender of the full amount of the debt is necessary citing Arshy

nolds Management Corp v Eischen 158 CalApp3d 575 (1984) and Karlsen v Am Sav

amp Loan Ass n 15 Cal App3d 112 (1971) However if BANA has no enforceable claim

to the Property and cannot produce any evidence that it acquired or possesses any rights to

the property then full tender would be an absurd requirement Anyone could maliciously

file a Notice of Trustees Sale and evict a homeowner If a lack of resources to tender the

outstanding balance on the loan prevented the homeowner from having her day in court

that fact would hardly prove that the BANA has a legitimate claim Mabry is correct a reshy

quirement of tender defeats the purpose of the statute

Even if an explicit offer of tender is required Plaintiff could not offer tender beshy

cause Defendants actions precluded her from doing so Tender of the amount owed typishy

cally is a condition precedent Rosenthal v Great Western Fin Securities Corp 14 Cal

4th 394 415 (1996) Notwithstanding it would be inequitable to apply the tender rule in

this matter Specifically the Rosenthal line of cases are factually inapposite to the case at

bar because in the Rosenthal line of cases defendants own actions did not preclude plainshy

4


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

tiff from offering tender Here Defendants caused the ruin of Plaintiffs credit and Plainshy

tiff was uncertain as to who was the owner of the property Accordingly the tender rule

should be disregarded in this matter Plaintiff need not demonstrate her ability to provide

tender Yamamoto v Bank ofNew York 329 F3d 1167 1171 (9th Cir 2003) Yamamoto

emphasizes a district courts equitable discretion to modify rescission procedures Id at

1173 This discretion can be exercised in favor of lenders by requiring borrowers to make

a showing of their ability to pay a lump sum or in favor of borrowers by allowing them to

fulfill their tender obligation by making payments over time Id citing In re Stuart 367

BR 541 552 (Bankr ED Pa 2007) see Shepard v Quality Siding amp Window Factory

730 F Supp 1295 (D Del 1990) (allowing borrower to satisfy tender obligation by makshy

ing monthly payments at the rate she had understood would be applicable) Mayfield v

Vanguard Sav amp Loan Assn 710 FSupp 143 149 (ED Pa 1989) (allowing borrower to

satisfy tender obligation by making monthly payment equal to those she made before the

loan transaction)

The identity of the owner of the property is the core issue in this case Plaintiffs

pre-Discovery inquiries indicate that Freddie Mac rather than BANA is the owner of the

loan BANA did not own the loan at the time she filed her complaint therefore BANA is

not the mortgagee This issue cannot be brushed aside on the pretense that California is a

non-judicial foreclosure state Non-judicial does not mean outlaw If BANA is not the

mortgagee it would be unjust to dismiss the complaint and allow BANA to seize Plaintiffs

home She has a grant deed She was ready willing and able to resume monthly payments

to the owner of the note Is BANA legally entitled to repayment of these funds from Plainshy

tiff BANA must produce the original promissory note and show that BANA is the benefishy

ciary of the note or that it is acting on behalf of the beneficiary with the beneficiarys

permission Plaintiff is informed and believes that BANA cannot produce the necessary

instruments She will show at trial that the promissory note was bundled into a presold

Trust which was then securitized and offered for investment many times over In other

words the note was atomized and no longer exists as an enforceable mortgage docushy

5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ment Defendants have requested the Court to take judicial notice of uncertified and

fraudulent documents (1) The Notice of Default was allegedly recorded on March 22

2010 by Recontrust Company whereas the (2) Recontrust Company was not substituted

as trustee until April 7 2010 Recontrust Company had no power to give a Notice of Deshy

fault as it was not the Trustee The Substitution of Trustee was not recorded until April 7

2010 As more fully set forth in Plaintiffs Opposition to Judicial Notice EXHIBIT C

The Substitution of Trustee is a forged document A tender is unnecessary where to do

so would be is inequitable See Humboldt Sav Bank v McCleverty 161 Cal 285 291 119

P 82 (1911) Rodriguez v Litton Loan Servicing LP No 09-cv-0029 2009 US Dist

LEXIS 431432009 WL 1326339 at E D Cal May 122009)

C Borrower Has A Private Right Against Lender For Failure To Modify Loan

Defendants cite Mabry v Aurora Loan Services 185 CalApp4th 208 on pages 6

and 18 of their MOD The Court of Appeals ruled in Mabry that a borrower has a private

right of action under sect29235 and is not required to tender the full amount of the mortgage

as a prerequisite to filing suit since that would defeat the purpose of the statute Under the

courts narrow construction of the statute sect29235 merely adds a procedural step in the

foreclosure process Since the statute is not substantive it is not preempted by federal law

The declaration specified in sect29235 does not have to be signed under penalty of perjury

and if the notice is defective the borrowers remedy is limited to getting a postponement

of a foreclosure while the lender files a new notice of default that complies with sect29235

The unauthenticated Notice of Default as Exhibit D does not comply with sect 29235

Defendant is confused when it states that Section 29236 does not require an offer

of a loan modification nor does any statute create a private right of action for borrowers to

modifY the terms of the loans Indeed this is not the case There are some federal cases

which support Defendants position Farmers v Countrywide Home Loans 2009 WL

189025 (SDCal 2009) and Connors v Home Loan Corp 2009 WL 1615989 from San

Diego Yet the reasoning of these cases is impaired because they reach an irrelevant conshy

clusion from a faulty premise Connors in particular is seriously flawed Both Farmers

6


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

and Connors conclude that sect29236 does not create a private right of action for borrowers

The Connors court goes on to conclude that the Legislature did not intend to create such a

private right because [a] statute creates a private right of action only if the enacting body

so intended Connors supra 2009 WL 1615989 A court must construe a statute with due

regard for the ordinary meaning of the language used and in harmony with the whole sysshy

tern of law of which it is a part California State Restaurant Assoc v Willow (1976) 129

Cal Rptr 824 58 CA3d 340 To assert that the legislature passed a law without including

an enforcement provision is to construe a statute so that the result is absurd Such a conshy

struction clearly contravenes the legislative intent Disabled and Blind Action Committee

oCalifornia v Jenkins (1974) 44 CA3d 74

The Connors court interpretation effectively results in a judicial nullification of the

statute A private right of action is the only reasonable method of enforcement of the statshy

ute It is difficult to imagine that the California Legislature did not intend a private right of

action for borrowers Such a judicial proclamation without clear legislative intent to supshy

port it renders the statute toothless It cannot be what the legislature had intended See SB

1137 Section 1 subd (g)and Mabry v Superior Court 185 Cal App 4th 208 226 (July

2010)

Thus a private right of action exists under Section 29236 Alternatively as Plainshy

tiffs claims for relief are only based on violations of Sections 29235 and 29236 and are

not direct actions under either statute the analysis is irrelevant Accordingly Plaintiffs

allegations and claims for relief based on Defendants violations of Sections 29235 and

29236 are supported by the pleadings

D Claim Of Breach Implied Covenant Of Good Faith And Fair Dealing Is Proper

Defendants essentially argue that they cannot be held liable for any acts of the other

Defendants because it had no duty or relationship with the Plaintiff However Defendants

argument ignores the allegations ofPlaintiff complaint and governing law regarding civil

conspiracy and joint ventures as set forth in the complaint

7


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

Contrary to Defendants assertion a special relationship is not required because

every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its pershy

formance and its enforcement Carma Developers Inc v Marathon Development Califorshy

nia Inc (1992) 2 Cal4th 342 371-372

Plaintiff properly pled Defendants violated the breach of implied covenant of good

faith and fair dealing Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and

fair dealing in its performance and its enforcement Carma Developers Inc v Marathon

Dev Cal Inc 2 Cal4th 342 371 6 CalRptr2d 467 826 P2d 710 (1992) (quoting Reshy

statement (Second) of Contracts sect 205) The covenant of good faith finds particular applishy

cation in situations where one party is invested with a discretionary power affecting the

rights of another Such power must be exercised in good faith See Marsu B V v Walt

Disney Co (9th Cir) 185 F3d 932 The Implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is

an equitable doctrine which may validate otherwise unenforceable agreements It is a docshy

trine of equity that the courts may use to achieve a just result when a contract (example

the loan modification trial plan agreement) is unclear regarding a partys obligations and

the doctrine can then allow the court to enforce what might otherwise be deemed an unenshy

forceable agreement

The implied promise requires each contracting party to refrain from doing anything

to injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement Egan v Mutual of

Omaha Ins Co supra 24 Ca13d at p 818 169 Cal Rptr 691 620 P2d 141 [T]he

covenant is implied to prevent a contracting party from engaging in conduct which (while

not technically transgressing the express covenant) frustrates the other partys rights of the

benefits of the contract See Los Angeles Equestrian Ctr Inc v City ofLose Angeles 17

CalAppAth 434 447 21 CalRptr2d 313 (1993) Even where a defendant is given absoshy

lute discretion it must exercise that discretion in good faith See Travellers Intern A G v

Trans World Airlines Inc 41 F3d 1570 (2d Cir 1994) Thus a party who evades the

spirit ofthe contract willfully renders imperfect performance or interferes with performshy

ance by the other party may be liable for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and

8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

fair dealing See Paul v Howard University 754 A2d 297 145 Ed Law Rep 702 (DC

2000) Some courts have focused on the reasonable expectations of the parties (See Savers

Federal Sav and Loan Ass n v Home Federal Sav and Loan Ass n 721 F Supp 940 945

(WD Tenn 1989twhile others have focused on whether the action taken by the breaching

party was arbitrary and capricious See Coles Dept Store v First Bank (NA)-Billings

240 Mont 226 783 P2d 93293611 DCC Rep Servo 2d 1074 (1989)

Defendant BANA willfully breached its implied covenant of good faith and fair

dealing with Plaintiff when Defendants (1) Failed to provide all of the proper disclosures

(2) Failed to provide accurate Right to Cancel Notices (3) Placed Plaintiff in her current

loan product without regard for other more affordable products (4) Placed Plaintiff in a

loan without following proper underwriting standards (5) Failed to disclose to Plaintiff

that she was going to default because of the loan being unaffordable (6) Failed to perform

valid and lor properly documented substitutions and assignments so that Plaintiff could asshy

certain her rights and duties and (7) Failed to respond in good faith to Plaintiffs request

for documentation of the servicing of her loan and the existence and content of relevant

documents Additionally Defendants breached their implied covenant of good faith and

fair dealing with Plaintiff when Defendants initiated foreclosure proceedings without havshy

ing even the right under an alleged power of sale because the purported assignment was

not recorded and by willfully and knowingly profiting from their malfeasance The Moshy

tion to Dismiss should be denied

E Claim For Equitable And Injunctive Relief Is Properly Averred

Preliminary injunctive relief including TRO is not a preliminary adjudication on

the merits but a device for preserving the status quo and preventing the irreparable loss of

rights before judgment Textile Unlimited Inc v ABMH and Co Inc 240 F3d 781

786 (9th Cir 2001) The status quo ante litem refers not simply to any situation before the

filing of a lawsuit but instead to the last uncontested status which preceded the pending

controversy GoTo com Inc v The Walt Disney Co 202 F3d 1199 1210 (9th Cir

2000) A party seeking preliminary injunctive relief including a temporary restraining orshy9


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

der must show either (1) a combination of probable success on the merits and the possibilshy

ity of irreparable harm or (2) that serious questions going to the merits are raised or the

balance of hardships tips sharply in the moving partys favor Sun Microsystems Inc v

Microsoft Corp 188 F3d 1115 1119 (9th Cir 1999) These two formulations represent

two points on a sliding scale in which the required degree of irreparable harm increases as

the probability of success decreases Roe v Anderson 134f3d 1400 1402 (9th Cir

1998) Nichols v Deutsche Bank National Trust Company 2007 US Dist LEXIS 86223

Here Plaintiff asserts that preserving the status quo means returning the possession of her

home before judgment in this case is entered As she is able to show probable success on

the merits (as discussed at length above) and the imminent threat of great irreparable harm

(In California a foreclosure sale of real property presumptively constitutes irreparable

harm as a matter of law thus establishing that portion of the TRO requirement Wheat v

Thomas 209 Cal 306 (1930) CCP sect 3387 As a practical matter Plaintiff cannot reshy

place her house if the Trustees Sale is made to a bona fide purchaser she will lose this

unique property she has made so many sacrifices to keep Plaintiff successfully supports

her claim for injunctive relief

F Elements Of Fraud Are Properly Pleaded

Under California law the elements of common law fraud are misrepresentation

knowledge of its falsity intent to defraud justifiable reliance and resulting damage Gil v

Bank ofAm NA 42 Cal Rptr 3d 310 317 (Cal Ct App 2006) Common law claims of

fraud must be pled with sufficient particularity See Fed R Civ P 9(b) (In alleging fraud

or mistake a party must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or

mistake) Therefore in addition to the time place and content of an alleged misrepreshy

sentation a complaint must set forth what is false or misleading about a statement and

an explanation as to why the statement or omission complained of was false or misleadshy

ing Yourish v Cal Amplifier 191 F3d 983 993 amp n10 (9th Cir 1999) (citations omitshy

ted) It is clear that Plaintiff has pled the circumstances of the alleged fraud with sufficient

particularity The allegations of the Complaint are specific enough to meet the heightened 10


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Rule 9(b) standard Let us begin with Plaintiffs loan application which was filled in with

fraudulent figures by BANA s agents Actual fraud under Cal Code sect1572 consists of inshy

tentional acts to deceive and or to induce the other party to enter into the contract the sugshy

gestion as a fact of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true the

positive assertion in any manner not warranted by the information of the person making it

of that which is not true though the person making the assertion believes it to be true the

suppression of that which is true by one having knowledge or belief of the fact a promise

made without any intention of performing it and any other act fitted to deceive All these

facts are pled with particularity Defendants argue in effect that BANAs conduct exceeded

that of a typical money lender So everybody was doing it EXHIBIT C is an prime exam-

pie of BANAs hubris

G A Present And Actual Controversy Exists Between Defendant And Plaintiff Reshy

quiring A Judicial Declaration

Defendants focus only on one aspect of Plaintiffs complaint and neglect to mention

all allegations clearly outlined in Plaintiff s Complaint Contrary to the argument of Deshy

fendants the request for declaratory relief states an independent claim If Defendant had

read the Complaint in its entirety it would have become clear that although Plaintiff has

incorporated many of the allegations in her request for a judicial declaration her allegashy

tions for declaratory relief include paragraph 173 These disputes concern but are not limshy

ited to the ownership rights and the validity of the commencement of the foreclosure procshy

ess Paragraph 175 of the Complaint continues to state Plaintiff further alleges that a

declaration of rights and duties of the parties herein are essential to determine the actual

status and validity of the loan Contrary to Defendants claims Plaintiff successfully

bases her request for declaratory relief upon multiple violations committed against her durshy

ing the loan origination process and not merely on other complaints upon which Defendant

applies focus and attention

A complete reading of Plaintiffs Complaint shows that Plaintiff specifically alshy

leged the existence of an actual present controversy between the parties with respect to the 11


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

property and [has] allege[d] the underlying facts of the respective claims concerning the

dispute or controversy City olCotati v Cashman (2002) 29 Cal4th 69 79 Plaintiff asshy

serts that Defendants possess no right to foreclose on the Subject Property because none of

the Defendants possess the Note as it was assigned to a trust pool and that notification was

improper As such pursuant to California Civil Code sect29325 the purported power of sale

contained in the Deed of Trust no longer applies and in turn the foreclosure attempt upon

the subject property is a fraud on the Court as exemplified by Defendants requesting the

Court to take Judicial Notice of a forged document viz EXHIBIT C Therefore there is an

actual and present controversy as to the rights and obligations of all Defendants and the

MOD should be denied

H Foreclosure Should Not Be Permitted If Its Propriety Is In Question

Wrongful foreclosure is an action in equity wherein Plaintiff seeks to set aside a

foreclosure sale See Abdallah v United Sav Bank 43 CalApp4th 1101 1009 (1996)

Karlsen v American Sav amp Loan Assn 15 CalApp3d 112 117 92 CalRptr 851 (1971)

In compliance with Rule 8 Plaintiff has alleged facts indicating why Defendants forecloshy

sure was wrongful Plaintiff has also based her wrongful foreclosure action on the basis of

California Civil Code sect29235 As set forth in Plaintiffs Objection to Judicial Notice Reshy

con Trust does not have the authority to foreclose under the deed of trust because of the

fraudulent Substitution of Trustee document Defendants wrongfully foreclosed on Plainshy

tiffs property and they owed Plaintiff a duty of care See Garcia v Ocwen Loan Servicing

LLC 2010 WL 1881098 (NDCal) (Denying motion to dismiss claim against loan sershy

vicer and holding that servicer owed borrower a duty of care) Specifically the servicing of

the loan was intended to affect Plaintiff and her home

There was a clear foreseeability of harm to Bernice Jacobs as she could lose her

home Moreover the loss of Plaintiffs home would be a proximate cause of the Defenshy

dants breach of their duty of care The Defendants wrongfully recorded a notice of deshy

fault on the property Also moral blame must be attached to the Defendants conduct as

they knowingly recorded the default even though they knew that they that they did not

12


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

have the legal authority to do so Additionally through legislation California has estabshy

lished a policy of preventing unnecessary and wrongful foreclosures Therefore Plaintiffs

wrongful foreclosure cause of action is proper and Defendants MOD should be denied

The California Supreme court in More v Calkins (1895) 84 Cal 177 held that a sale under

foreclosure ought not to be made when the debt is uncertain or in dispute This is still true

today as the Court in Baypoint Mortgage Corp v Crest Premium Real Estate etc Trust

(1985) 168 CalApp3d 818 [214 Cal Rptr3d 531] noted Given the drastic implications of

a foreclosure it is not surprising to fmd courts quite frequently granting preliminary inshy

junctions to forestall this remedy while the court considers a case testing whether it is justishy

fied under the facts and law See eg Stockton v Newman (1957) CalApp2d 558 [307

P2d 56J Bisno v Sax (1959) 175 CaLApp2d 714 [346 P2d S14]

BANA asserts that it is the beneficiary of the note Only BANA knows whether

plaintiffs loan was on the books as an asset of Freddie Mac on January 14 2008 when

BANA purportedly made the loan to Plaintiff It is questionable that BANA was the owner

of Plaintiffs property at the time it loaned money to the Plaintiff Where factual findings

or the contents of the documents are in dispute those matters of dispute are not appropriate

for judicial notice Caravantes v California Reconveyance Co 2010 WL 4055560 9

(SDCal 2010) citing Darensburg v Metropolitan Transp Commn 2006 WL 167657 at

2 (NDCal Jan20 2006)

The irregularities in this transaction between Plaintiff and BANA question the basic

issue of whether BANA has the standing to enforce the rights associated with the deed of

trust See Stephen R Buchenroth and Gretchen D Jeffries Recent Foreclosure Cases

Lenders Beware (June 2007) Wells Fargo v Jordan 914 NE2d 204 (Ohio 2009) (If

plaintiff has offered no evidence that it owned the note and mortgage when the complaint

was filed it would not be entitled to judgment as a matter of law) Christopher Lewis Peshy

terson Foreclosure Subprime Mortgage Lending and the Mortgage Electronic Registrashy

tion System University of Cincinnati Law Review Vol 78 No4 at 1368-1371 (Summer

13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2010) Defendants claims are as barren as their assertion that they properly recorded the

Substitution of Trustee EXHffiIT C (An obviously forged instrument)

III CONCLUSION

There is clearly a significant and deep-reaching controversy brewing between the

parties and a pressing need for a judicial determination of the parties rights and duties

concerning the validity of the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust and Defendants rights

in the Property The Defendants use of fraudulent documents has affected determinations

regarding the foreclosure on Plaintiffs property For the reasons stated above this Court

should deny the motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint and permit her to develop the evishy

dence necessary to vindicate her claims and obtain damages for the wrongs committed

against her

LA W OFFICES OF MELBOURNE B WEDDLE Dated January 42011

lsi Melbourne B Weddle

Melbourne B Weddle Attorney for Plaintiff

14


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONfENTS

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO DISMISS (MOD) 2

I ARGUMENT 2

A Complaint Has Probable Validity In Proving Facts 2

B Tender Is Not A Requirement When It Would Be Inequitable

To Do So 4

C Borrower Has A Private Right Against Lender For Failure

To Modify Loan 6

D Claim OfBreach Implied Covenant Of Good Faith And

Fair Dealing Is Proper 7

E Claim For Equitable And Injunctive Relief Is Properly Averred 9

F Elements Of Fraud Are Properly Plead 10

G A Present And Actual Controversy Exists Between Defendant

And Plaintiff Requiring A Judicial Declaration 11

H A Present And Actual Controversy Exists Betweenmiddot

Defendant And Plaintiff Requiring A Judicial Declaration 12

II CONCLUSION 13

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss i

5

10

15

20

25


2


4






584 F3d 821 824 (9th Cir 2009)





(1976) 129 Cal Rptr 824 58 CA 3d 340



18 (1992) 2 Cal4lh 342371-372






24 2006 WL 167657 at 2 (ND Cal Jan20 2006)


26 (1974) 44 CA3d 74

27

28


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28


Page



2009 WL 189025 (SDCal 2009)


2010 WL 1881098 (NDCal)


202 F3d 1199 1210 (9th Cir 2000)










710 FSupp 143 149 (ED Pa 1989)





754 A2d 297 145 Ed Law Rep 702 (DC 2000)


720 F2d 578 581 (9th Cir 1983)


5

10

15

20

25


2 Page


4 2009 US Dist LEXIS 431432009 WL 1326339




8 14 Cal 4th 394 415 (1996)




12 730 F Supp 1295 (D Del 1990)



188 F3d 1115 1119 (9th Cir 1999)



18 41 F3d 1570 (2d Cir 1994)








26 Section 29235 7 12

27 Section 29236 2 7

28 Section 1572 211


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28














I ARGUMENT













18 F3d 752 (9th Cir 1994)

2


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























3


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




first instance

























4


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28














loan transaction)















5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28





























6


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

















2010)











7


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




nia Inc (1992) 2 Cal4th 342 371-372













forceable agreement












8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











pie of BANAs hubris



















5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























12


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




























13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



III CONCLUSION








against her




14


5

10

15

20

25


2


4






584 F3d 821 824 (9th Cir 2009)





(1976) 129 Cal Rptr 824 58 CA 3d 340



18 (1992) 2 Cal4lh 342371-372






24 2006 WL 167657 at 2 (ND Cal Jan20 2006)


26 (1974) 44 CA3d 74

27

28


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28


Page



2009 WL 189025 (SDCal 2009)


2010 WL 1881098 (NDCal)


202 F3d 1199 1210 (9th Cir 2000)










710 FSupp 143 149 (ED Pa 1989)





754 A2d 297 145 Ed Law Rep 702 (DC 2000)


720 F2d 578 581 (9th Cir 1983)


5

10

15

20

25


2 Page


4 2009 US Dist LEXIS 431432009 WL 1326339




8 14 Cal 4th 394 415 (1996)




12 730 F Supp 1295 (D Del 1990)



188 F3d 1115 1119 (9th Cir 1999)



18 41 F3d 1570 (2d Cir 1994)








26 Section 29235 7 12

27 Section 29236 2 7

28 Section 1572 211


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28














I ARGUMENT













18 F3d 752 (9th Cir 1994)

2


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























3


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




first instance

























4


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28














loan transaction)















5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28





























6


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

















2010)











7


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




nia Inc (1992) 2 Cal4th 342 371-372













forceable agreement












8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











pie of BANAs hubris



















5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























12


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




























13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



III CONCLUSION








against her




14


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28


Page



2009 WL 189025 (SDCal 2009)


2010 WL 1881098 (NDCal)


202 F3d 1199 1210 (9th Cir 2000)










710 FSupp 143 149 (ED Pa 1989)





754 A2d 297 145 Ed Law Rep 702 (DC 2000)


720 F2d 578 581 (9th Cir 1983)


5

10

15

20

25


2 Page


4 2009 US Dist LEXIS 431432009 WL 1326339




8 14 Cal 4th 394 415 (1996)




12 730 F Supp 1295 (D Del 1990)



188 F3d 1115 1119 (9th Cir 1999)



18 41 F3d 1570 (2d Cir 1994)








26 Section 29235 7 12

27 Section 29236 2 7

28 Section 1572 211


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28














I ARGUMENT













18 F3d 752 (9th Cir 1994)

2


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























3


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




first instance

























4


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28














loan transaction)















5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28





























6


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

















2010)











7


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




nia Inc (1992) 2 Cal4th 342 371-372













forceable agreement












8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











pie of BANAs hubris



















5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























12


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




























13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



III CONCLUSION








against her




14


5

10

15

20

25


2 Page


4 2009 US Dist LEXIS 431432009 WL 1326339




8 14 Cal 4th 394 415 (1996)




12 730 F Supp 1295 (D Del 1990)



188 F3d 1115 1119 (9th Cir 1999)



18 41 F3d 1570 (2d Cir 1994)








26 Section 29235 7 12

27 Section 29236 2 7

28 Section 1572 211


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28














I ARGUMENT













18 F3d 752 (9th Cir 1994)

2


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























3


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




first instance

























4


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28














loan transaction)















5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28





























6


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

















2010)











7


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




nia Inc (1992) 2 Cal4th 342 371-372













forceable agreement












8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











pie of BANAs hubris



















5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























12


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




























13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



III CONCLUSION








against her




14


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28














I ARGUMENT













18 F3d 752 (9th Cir 1994)

2


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























3


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




first instance

























4


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28














loan transaction)















5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28





























6


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

















2010)











7


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




nia Inc (1992) 2 Cal4th 342 371-372













forceable agreement












8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











pie of BANAs hubris



















5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























12


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




























13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



III CONCLUSION








against her




14


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























3


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




first instance

























4


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28














loan transaction)















5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28





























6


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

















2010)











7


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




nia Inc (1992) 2 Cal4th 342 371-372













forceable agreement












8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











pie of BANAs hubris



















5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























12


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




























13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



III CONCLUSION








against her




14


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28




first instance

























4


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28














loan transaction)















5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28





























6


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

















2010)











7


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




nia Inc (1992) 2 Cal4th 342 371-372













forceable agreement












8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











pie of BANAs hubris



















5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























12


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




























13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



III CONCLUSION








against her




14


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28














loan transaction)















5


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28





























6


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

















2010)











7


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




nia Inc (1992) 2 Cal4th 342 371-372













forceable agreement












8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











pie of BANAs hubris



















5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























12


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




























13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



III CONCLUSION








against her




14


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28





























6


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

















2010)











7


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




nia Inc (1992) 2 Cal4th 342 371-372













forceable agreement












8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











pie of BANAs hubris



















5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























12


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




























13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



III CONCLUSION








against her




14


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28

















2010)











7


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




nia Inc (1992) 2 Cal4th 342 371-372













forceable agreement












8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











pie of BANAs hubris



















5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























12


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




























13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



III CONCLUSION








against her




14


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




nia Inc (1992) 2 Cal4th 342 371-372













forceable agreement












8


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











pie of BANAs hubris



















5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























12


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




























13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



III CONCLUSION








against her




14


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











pie of BANAs hubris



















5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























12


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




























13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



III CONCLUSION








against her




14


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






























1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











pie of BANAs hubris



















5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























12


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




























13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



III CONCLUSION








against her




14


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28











pie of BANAs hubris



















5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























12


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




























13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



III CONCLUSION








against her




14


5

10

15

20

25

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28





























12


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




























13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



III CONCLUSION








against her




14


5

10

15

20

25

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

11

12

13

14

16

17

18

19

21

22

23

24

26

27

28




























13


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



III CONCLUSION








against her




14


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



III CONCLUSION








against her




14


Opp. Def. Judical Notice Final

Documents

Transcript of Opp. Def. Judical Notice Final