Notice of Bankruptcy Stay Entire Action

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.July 2, 2018

I CM-1 80rfi-fi I a ATTORNEY 0R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY ama, State Barnumber, andaddlass : if I [SE_ lSlDORO TORRES. PRO SE (N J FOR &&u ONLY LUZVIMINDA TORRES, PRO SE 1898 SEAVIEW DRIVE SAN JOSE, CA 95122 aUG l 6 2mg TELEPHONE No; 408-205-581 1 FAX No. (Opuonal): E-MNL ADDRESS (Optional).- ATTORNEY FOR (Name).- SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STREETADDRESS: 191 N, First St, MAlLING ADDRESS: Same cnYAND a? CODE: San Jose, CA 951 13 BRANCH NAME: San Jose Court PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016, LLC DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: ISIDORO and LUZVIMINDA TORRES CASE NUMBER; 18CV330546 NOTICE OF STAY 0F PROCEEDINGS JUDGE DEPT; To the court and to all parties: < a. is m the party E the attorney forthe party who requested or caused the stay. b. m ls E the pIaintiff or petitioner E the attorney for the plaintiff or petitioner. The party who requested the stay has not appeared in this case or is not subject to the jurisdiction of this court. /Ix 2. This case is stayed as follows: a. With regard to all parties. - 'fl‘ b. D With regard to the following parties (specify by name and party designation): 3. Reason for the stay: a. m Automatic stay caused by a filing in another court. (Attach a copy of the Notice of Commencement of Case, the bankruptcy petition, or other document showing that the stay is in effect, and showing the court, case number, debtor, and petitioners.) » - b. E Order of a federal court or of a higher California court (Attach a copy ofthe court order.) c- E Contractual arbitration under Code of Civil Procedure secfion 1281 .4. (Attach a copy of the order directing arbitration.) d- E‘ Arbitration of attorney fees and costs under Business and Professions Code section 6201. (Attach a copy of the client's request far arbitration showing filing and service.) e. Other: Notice ofRemovalV l declare under penalty of peljury under the laws of the State of Califomia that the foregoing is true and correct. Date; 2018-08-15 Em (gig fifiMEOFDEmva/MM ’ d“ :ZW\)” LMZV/M WUA OW Z?!aw Page1 011 Form led for Ma d t U . .Jumma-m‘éamf NOTICE 0F STAY 0F PROCEEDINGS Cal wmfignnmggg CM-1BO (Rev. January 1. 2007] American LegaJNeL Inc. www.FonnsWorkflow.com ‘J l, ISIDORO TORRES, PRO SE LUZVIMINDA TORRES, PRO SE 1898 SEAVIEW DRIVE SAN JOSE, CA 95122 EsFlLlNG Attorney for Defendant, ADR IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT 0F CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION ' BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016, . ' 6 1W484-9? SVK Plaintifi NOTICE T0 ADVERSE PARTY AND ' STATE COURT 0F REMOVAL OF vs. CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT (28 USC Sec 1446) ISIDORO V. TORRES and LUZVIMINDA (Santa Clara County Superior Court P. TORRES AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100. Case No l8CV330546) Defendants PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446 (d), a Notice ofRemoval of this Action was filed in the United States Dism'ct Court for the Northern District of California on August_201 8: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446 (d), this Court need to take no further action with respect to this case “unless and until the case is remanded.” Dated: $0“R ISIDORO TORRES?PRO SE oWW A TORRES, PRO SE Q Js 44 (Rev. 12/07) (CAND Rev 1/10) '1'}: JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplemem LIE filing and service ofpleading or other papem as required by law, except as provided by local tub ofcoun. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference oflhe United Slam in September I974, is required for the me oflhe Clerk Dmem for the purpose 0f initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE WSTRUCTIONS ON PAGE TWO OFTHE FORM.) 1. (a) PLAINTIFFS BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016, LLC CIVIL COVER SHEET DEFENDANTS ISIDORO V. TORRES and LUZVIMINDA P. TORRES (b) County of Residence of Filsi Listed Plainliif (EXCEFF [N U.S. PLANTIFF CASES) AER E-FILENG (c) Attorney's (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Coumy 0f Residence of First Listed Defendant (IN U.S. PLAINTFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: 1N LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. USETHE LOCATION OF THE LAND INVO LVED. E 1! \ Attomeys {[fKnown) g W K ISIDORO TORRES, PRO SE LUZVIMrNDA T R0 SE1139s SEAVIEW SAN JOSE, CA 9S II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X" in One Box omy) II]. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X“ in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) FTP DEF PTF DEFD I U‘S. Government m 3 Fedcral Question Ciximn ofTbis State D l D l Incorporated or Principal Plan: D 4 D 4 Plaintiff (UAS. Government Not a Party) ofBusiness In Th‘s Smte 2 us‘ Govemmem 4 Diversity Citizen ofAmmcr State D 2 D 2 1m mama and pm' ammo: s sIv m Defendam (lm'mtc Citinnsh'p ofPanis in hem Ill) “Business In Amxmr slam citim msnbjmora D 3 D 3 Foreign Nation D 6 D 6 Fomig] Coumry Iv. NATURE 0F SUIT (Place an “X“ in One Bax Only) CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTESE 110 Insummc PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 6w Aghunm E422 Appcai 28 usc 158 D400 Sum RcapponionmcmD 120 Marine D310 Aimlane D362 pcmml Injury_ mszo Other Food & Drug D423 Withdxawal D410 AntitrustD 130 Miller Ac! D] 5 Airplane pmduct Mod. Malpracficc D625 Drug Related Seimre 28 USC 157 D430 Banks and BankingD I40 Negotiabb Instrumcm Liabimy D365 personal Injury _ owapcny 2! USC 88I D450CommmcD 15° Recovery 0f0verpaymem D320 Assault, Lhem Product Liability E630 Liquor Lows mommy RIGHTS D460 Deportation & Enfotcemenl of Judgment Slander D363 Asbesms pmonaI D640 R.R. & Truck 820 C , 470 Racketwr Influenced andD 151 Medicare Ac: :pgo mg»... Empbym' Injury pmdw D650 Airline Regs. Em PWWgh" Comm: OrganizationsE 152 Recovery orncmuucd Liabimy Liability Ewe Occupational D840 Ty“ E430 Consumer Cram Smdem Loans D40 Marine PERSONAL PROPERTY Safdy/Hmltb “Wk D490 Cabk/SalTV (Excl Veterans) D45 Mme product D370 0mg Fraud E690 Other D810 Selective ServiceD 153 Rocowty ovaupaymcnt Liabmty . . 850 Securitig/Comrmd'niq/“Wm“ 3mm D50 Mom Mid: gigging: gimme“? LABOR 50cm. SECURITY aching:D l60 Stockholdm' Suits :pss Mow: Vehicre Pmpcfly Mag: D710 Fair LaborSmudards Dam HIA (mm) D875 CusmmerChallengeD 190 OKhflCOmmI product Liabimy D335 mpmy Damage Act Dam Black Lung (923) 12 USC 3410E I95 £‘le Product Liabflity :pso omcrrusonal mjmy mdw Liam“, D720 labor/Mgmg Relaxions Essa Dlwc/mww (405(9) EEO Othw Swuwry ActimsD I96 Franchsc 730 mmmmkeponmg D864 ssm Title XVI D89l Ayiukural Am PRISONER & D'scbsure Am D865 RSI (405(3)) D892 Economic Stabilization ActREAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PETITIONS 740 Railway mm Ac, D893 Environmental Mm“ D 210 Land Condemnation :441 Voting m 510 Motions no Vacaxc D790 0”“ LEW ““83“?" :89“ EMS? ““19“?" “fD 220 Forecbsure 442 Employment Sentence D791 EmPL ‘ReL Inc. FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 m °m° l" ”mam"' ' . Secum Act AClE 230 Rent Lease& Ejectuwnl 443 Housmg/ Habens Corpus. y I V 900 I {FD 24o Tons m Land Accommodations D 530 General D370 Tam (US‘ Plaintiff D A3?” °. °i°D 245 Ton Product Liability 444 welrm D 535 Dad: Penalty 0r Dcfcnqnnl) usdammml’Lm 29o A11 Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilixis - D 540 Mandamus & owe: IMMIGRATION [-1871 lRS-Thmi Party "qu “53 Embym‘ ' DSM‘Vng D%szmrmmnAwthm 2‘ USC 76w :woé‘iflfimmm“63¢. w/Dsabllma -D555 Prson Condlllon D463 HM Corpus _ Sum Smmm 00m“ c. .1 R. h Alien Daaineea "" '3 B D465 01h: Immig-mion Act'ms V. ORIGIN (Place an “X“ 1n One Box Only) Transfcmd fmm Appeal to Dism‘ctD 1 Orig'nal E 2 Rennved finm D 3 Remanded fiom D 4 Reinstatcd or D 5 another district D 6 Multidislrict E 7 Judge fiom Proceeding State Couxt Appellate Conn Reopened (specify) Litigtion Mag’smte Judgment VL CAUSE 0F ACTION Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): Briefdescriprion ofcause: TILA/RESPA VII. REQUESTED IN m CHECK [F ms Is A cuss Acnon DEMAND s According to proof cmscx YES only irdemanded in comprairm COMPLAINT: UNDER Hwy. 23 JURY DEMAND: D Yam No VI", RELATED CASE(S) PLEASE REFER TO CIVIL LR. 3-12 CONCERNING REQUIREMENT TO FILE 1F ANY "NOTICE 0F RELATED CASE". Ix DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (CIVIL L.R. 3-2) (PLACE ANp "x" IN ONE Box ONLY) KEQAN FRAIQCISCO/OAKLAND -ISAN JOSE DEUREKA DATE {//fl~/ l? Hwy“ or AfiXRNEYQ} kgck W {0VM ‘3 .6 Hm,» "\ l/ ISIDORo TORRES, PRO SE ML E'FHJNGLUZVIMINDA TORRES, pRo SE $ E D1898 SEAVIEW DRIVE SAN JOSE, CA 95122 Aug 1 5 2am Attorney for Defendant, “fifiw ADR IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT 0F CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION SVK EEECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016, case N0! : g; I 8 4 9 7 6 Plaintifi', DECLARATION 0F ISIDORO TORRES and LUZVIMINDA TORRES vs. ISIDORO V. TORRES and LUZVIMNDA P. TORRES AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100. Defendants. We, ISIDORO V. TORRES and LUZVIMINDA P. TORRES, declare as true and conect, that: 1. I allege that I have a pending lawsuit for more than $500,000.00 in damages against the Plaintifi‘ for damages resulting fi'om an unlawfixl conveyance, as well as lack of standing and wrongful foreclosure pending before the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara in regard to the real property at 1898 Seaview Dr., San Jose, CA 95 122. 2. That I allege having been informed that Plaintiff BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016, LLC, are conducting business in the State of California, without a business license in Califomia. 3. I allege a question of federal diversity and property interest violation under the United States Constitution of the real property at 1898 Seaview Dr., San Jose, CA 95122 and the Defendant alleges a federal question of rights seemed by the United States Constitution and the laws of the United States are at issue. Date: Respectfully submitted,Q» OWE 181130116 TORRES Q&AA/flffi/«a A TORRES K. x) '1 E-FILING ISIDORO TORRES, PRO SE LUZVINIINDA TORRES, PRO SE L1898 SEAVIEW DRIVE L%SAN JOSE, CA 95122 AU” 1' 5 7.0 18 ADR Attorney for Defendant, ufimm IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT 0F CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION SVK BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016, Case No Cv 18 :E 9 5? 6.LLC Plaintiff, NOTICE 0F REMOVAL PURSUANT T0 AMENDED 28 USC §l332, 1441, vs. AND 1446 (DIVERSITY JURISDICTION) AND OTHER FEDERAL ISSUES ISIDORO V. TORRES and LUZVIMINDA P. TORRES AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100. (Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No 18CV330546) Defendants. TO ALL PARTIES, THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, AND THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § I332, 1441 and 1446 as amended by Federal Court Jurisdiction .and Venue Clan'fication Act of 2011 that took efi‘ect in January 6, 2012, Defendant, hereby removes the action: BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016, LLC, v. ISIDORO TORRES and LUZVIMINDA TORRES, Case No. 18CV330546, fiom the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa Clam, to the United States District Court Northern District - San Jose Division, and in support of this removal states as follows: Procedural Histogx 1. Defendant, hereby provides notice of removal of this case fi'om the Superior Court of the State 0f California, in and for the County of Santa Clara to this Court. A declaration 0f Defendant is attached as Exhibit. Timeliness of Removal 2. Removing Defendant has not been properly served and jurisdiction has being questioned, but accepts service as of the date of filing this Notice of Removal. 3. This Notice of Removal is being filed on August_, 2018 which is less than a year since the commencement or notice 0f the abovementioned proceedings and is timely under 28 U.S.C. §1332 since the Plaintiff failed to specify or ascertain the total amount in controversy in the initial pleading of the instant or summary proceedings. Basis of Removal Jurisdiction 4. This is an action in which this Court has original jurisdiction over the State Court Action under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332,?" and the State Court Action may be removed to this Court pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(b) (c),3 because Plaintifi‘ Trust and the Defendant are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. '28 USC Sec. 1446(b) The notice of removal of a civil action 0r proceeding shall be filed within thirty days afler the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based, 0r within thirty days afier the service of summons upon the defendant if such initial pleading has then been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant, whichever period is shorter. If the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may he filed within thirty days afler receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper fiom which it may first be ascenained that the case is one which is or has become removable, except that a case may not be removed on the basis ofjurisdiction conferred by section 1332 of this title more than l year afier commencement of the action. 228 USC Sec. 1332, "Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs (a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between - (l) citizens of different States; (2) citizens ofa State and citizens or subjects ofa foreigi state;..." 328 USC Sec. 1441, "Actions removable generally (a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. For purposes of removal under this chapter. the citizenship of defendans sued under fictitious namms shall be disregarded, b) Any civil action ofwhich the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, teaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the panics in interest preperly joined and served as defendants is a citizen ofthe State in which such action is brought." 5. At this time, this action was commenced Plaintiff, BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016, LLC., is not a citizen ofCalifornia. 6. At this time the Defendant is a citizen ofCalifornia 7. Thus, the Plaintifi‘ and Defendants are citizens of different states for purpose of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332. 8. The Plaintifi’s action against the Defendant to gain possession of a piece of property worth more than $75,000.00. Defendant claims her damages exceed $75,000.00. Therefore, the amount of the residence at issue for the Defendant exceeds the jurisdictional prerequisite of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. The amount is beyond the jurisdiction of the couzts where this case is being removed from. Federal Question Arising under Federal Law 9. As a basis for removal due to existence of a federal issue, the case being removed is part of the whole process of Debt Collection and the Plaintiff are Debt Collectors identified under 15 U.S.C. § 1692 (Fair Debt Collection Practice Act “FDCPA”) themselves. Since May 8, 2006 the date when the defendant signed the mortgage papers up to present the debt still exist and subject to compliance with both FDCPA, Fair Credit Reporting Act 15 U.S.C. § 1681,. This also includes possible discrimination under the Title VIII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act). This court, therefore, has full jurisdiction to proceed with this action. This is a core proceeding as that term is defined by Section 157(b)(2) of Title 28 of the United States Code in that it concerns claims and counter-claims to the Proof of Claim and matters arising out of the administration of this removal case. .b/ 10. This Court has both personal and subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Secdon 1334 of Title 28 of the United States Code and Section 157(b)(2) of Title 28 of the United States Code. ll. Venue lies in this Distn'ct pursuant to Section 1391 (b) of Title 28 of the United States Code This matter is a federal question surrounding procedural due process right guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the atypical and significant hardship standard of rules of the United States Supreme Court in relation to property rights of Defendant. 12. Defendant alleges a federal question of due process rights guaranteed by the Fouzteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution arising from property interests and unlawfifl foreclosure by Plaintifi‘, who has unlawfully foreclosed the said real property. 13. By reason of the foregoing, the above-described action is a civil action which may be removed to this Court by Defendant pursuant to the provisions of 28 United States Code §1441(a)-(b), and because it is an action arising under the laws of the United States, over which this district court has original jurisdiction, and in relation to whether BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY. FUND 2016, LEG has ownership and authority to act as trustee and whether the said trust has valid ownership ofthe said real property in dispute. 14. Defendant alleges a federal question exists as to this matter having originated fiom WORLD SAVINGS BANK FSB to BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016, LLC, and whether plaintiff has established legal standing in the foreclosure actiOn. Defendant asserts her unlimited civil action alleging the Plaintiff does not have standing to foreclosure, is cause arising to a federal question and is grounds for federal jun'sdiction as Defendant is seeking to consolidate with that pending action. Procedures for Removal r\ A 15. Defendant has attached Exhibit , which constitutes all process, pleadings, and orders received and obtained by Removing Defendant in the State Court Action. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446(e). Also attached hereto is the copy ofthe Proposed Answer to the Summary or Instant Action filed'by the Plaintifi' as Exhibit #1 1'6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446(d), Removing Defendant is filing a Notice to Adverse Party with the copy of this Notice ofRemoval with the Superior Court: of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara, and is sewing a copy of the same upou the Plaintiff and other Defendants. Notice of State Courts 17. A copy of this Notice of Removal is being filed with the Clerk ot‘ the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clam, as an Exhibit to the Notice to Adverse Party and State Court of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court being filed in the Court. A copy of the Notice to Adverse Party and State Court being filed in state court is attached hereto (without exhibits) as Exhibit. WHEREFORE, Removing Defendant hereby gives notice that the above action in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara is removed in its entirety to this Court. . ‘ - ‘ a t DATED: C2p); ‘I q‘ L ISIDORO TORRES, PRO SE Attorney for Defendant Attom for Defendant D (JQNl-l 10 11 12 13 14 1'5 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2'7 28 k/ kj ISIDORO TORRES, PRO SE LUZVIMINDA TORRES, PRO SE 1898 SEAVIEW DRIVE SAN JOSE, CA 95122 Tel: 408-205-581 I Defendant in Pro Se, SUPERIOR COURT 0F THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 201 6 CASE N0-= 13CV330546 1 Plainfifi. DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER T0 PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR IsmORo TORRES and LUZVIMINDA UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION TORRES DATE: Defendants. TIME: DEPT: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants, in answer to the Complaint on file, states as follows: 1. These answering Defendants do not have any information or belief to enable them to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph l of the complaint of file and based on that lack of information and belief these answering Defendants do hereby generally deny the allegations ofparagraph l of the complaint on file. 2. These answering Defendants do not have any information or belief to enable them to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 2 of the complaint of file and based on that lack of information and belief these answering Defendants do hereby generally deny the allegations ofparagraph 2 ofthe complaint on file. 3. These answering Defendants do not have any information or belief to enable them to ROWQO‘U'Iwal-l H O 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 admit or deny the allegations contained in paragaph 3 of the complaint of file and based on that lack of information and belief these answen'ng Defendants do hereby generally deny the allegations ofparagraph 3 of the complaint on file. 4. These answering Defendants do not have any information or belief to enable them to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragaph 4 of the complaint of file and based on that lack of information and belief these answering Defendants do hereby generally deny the allegations ofparagraph 4 of the complaint on file. 5. These answering Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of the complaint of file. Plaintifi' claims the Property was sold by the Trustee to Plaintifi' at a Trustee’s Sale. No valid Trustee Sale occurred. There was no consideration in the terms of a transfer tax as would have otherwise been had an actual, as opposed to fictitious Trustee Sale occurred, as “Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale.” 6. These answering Defendants neither affirm nor deny the allegations contained in paragraph 6 ofthe complaint of file. 7. These answering Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the complaint of file. Defendants were never served. 8. These answering Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of the complaint of file. No notices have been received by Defendants, not by any other Person on Defendants’ behalf. 9. These answering Defendants deny the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of the complaint of file. Defendants find these allegations completely baseless. Plaintifi‘ has no right or entitlement to any possessory interest of any property, residential or commercial, as Plaintifi‘ is not verified to hold title to property in such capacity. Plaintiff was acting solely in capacity as a servicer, yet now brings this goundless claim of ownership in title interest. Plaintifl‘ has never had any right to an equitable interest in or to the Property. hWNH mU'l 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ,.. y \\‘ 7/“N 10. These answering Defendants do not have any information or belief to enable them to admit or deny the allegations contained in paragraph 10 ofthe complaint of file and based on that lack of information and belief these answering Defendants do hereby generally deny the allegations ofparagraph 10 ofthe complaint on file. 11. These answering Defendants generally and specifically deny the allegations contained in paragraph ll of the complaint of file. 12. These answering Defendants generally and specifically deny the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of the complaint of file. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure to State a Cause of Action Defendants are informed and believe and therein allege that each cause of action contained in the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The complaint on file fails to state a cause of action for unlawful detainer because a landlord-tenant = relationship does not exist between Plaintifi‘ and Defendant. Defendants believe, on information readily available, that Plaintifl‘has no other grounds upon which to state a claim. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff and Attorney Lacks Canacig Plaintifi‘ is without the legal capacity required by applicable laws to bring the action set forth in its complaint against Defendant. Evidence exists that negates any alleged claim ofright, interest, or standing to bring an unlawful detainer action against Defendants by this Plaintiff. When an attorney verifies the complaint CCC § 446 is clear that the pleadings "shall not otherwise be considered as an affidavit or declaration establishing the facts therein alleged". Case law is clear that attomey verification is to be discouraged and should receive a strict lO ll 12 13 l4 15 16 l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2'7 28 construction and even when that strict construction is applied, mom are established within the Complaint. The attorney points out in his verification he "read the foregoing Unlawful Detainer Summons and Complaint" and on "information and belief" that the matters are true. His verification is based on "information and belief" - not personal knowledge. One can almost read into this that the attorney is standing in the Ish0e5 0f the Plaintifi‘ and acting as a witness to the allegations ofthe Unlawful Detainer Complaint, and as such, at the minimum there should be a written authorization by the Plaintifi‘ allowing the attorney to stand in their shoes and act as their “Wimess" (See California Rules ofProfessional Conduct 5-210(c)) "The object of the verification is to insure good faith in the averments of the patty." [Bittleston Law etc. Agency v. Howard (1916) 172 Cal. 357. 360 (156 P. 5151.) According t0 CCP § 446 "When the verification is made by the attorney ....in those cases the pleadings shall not otherwise be considered as an affidavit 0r declaration establishing the facts therein allege " (Emphasis added) Nowhere in the Plaintiff‘s pleadings is there one single declaration or affidavit by the Plaintiff on any of the alleged "facts". Not one. Every document completed is by some individual that is swearing under penalty of perjury, "upon information and belief“ not of personal knowledge. Unlawful Detainers, like foreclosures, are a "draconian and drastic measure" whose serious nature should warrant more than a signature based 0n hearsay evidence,‘ and every homeowner should be given the opportunity to either present competent evidence or cross examine the individuals who are "claiming the truthfulness" of recitals and "information and belief“. The very nature of a "prima facie" case is such that a legal proceeding should commence in which the "prima facie" evidence is tested before a court ruling is made. By virtue of the ' Webster definition of Hearsay evidence: evidence based not on a witness's personal knowledge but on mother's statement net made under oath MN 10 ll 12 l3 14 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 attorney verification, Plaintifi willingly forgoes any "presumptions" and must therefore prove each "element" and "fact" that the recitals in the Trustee Deed Upon Sale and Corporation Grant Deed are based on. California Codes (evidence, civil and procedure) clearly state that business records are nothing more than hearsay unless and if they are supported by competent testimony, that rebuttable presumption is lost upon contest fiom the opposing party, that a party to the matter choosing to verify through their attomeyforegoes establishing thefacts. California Evidence Code § 500 states: Except as otherwise provided by law, a patty has the burden of proof as to each fact the existence or nonexistence of which is essential to the claim for relief or defense that he is asserting." Califomia Evidence Code § 1530(a)(2) requires that a puxported copy of a wn'ting in the custody of a public entity either "be attested to or a certified as a conect copy" - however alJ the recording of the TDUS proves is it was recordedz; according to Califomia Evidence Codes §§ 4033 and 17214 the recording ofthe TDUS does not establish the proofoffllepreliminaryfacty nor does it overcome the hearsay rule of the recitals in the document unless and only if, there is competent 2 See CI", p243-245, as the TDUS is not a certified copy and was improperly entered into evidence 3 California Evidence Code 403 (B) states "'Ihe proponent of the proffered evidence has the burden ofproducing evidence as to the existence of the preliminary fact, and the proffered evidence is inadmissible unless the court finds that there is evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of the existaiee ofthe preliminary fact, when: ( 1) The relevance ofthe proffered evidence depends on the existence of the preliminary fact; (2) The preliminaxy fact is the personal knowledge of a witness concerning the subject matter ofhis testimony; (3) 111a preliminmy ram is the authenticity ofa writing. or (4) The pmfi'ered evidence is of a statement or other conduct ofa particular person and the preliminary fact is whether that person made the statement or so conducted himself. ‘ California Evidence Code§ 1271: Evidence of a writing made as a record ofan act. condition, or event is not made inadmissflale by thc heaxsay rule when oflered to prove the act. condition, or event if: (a) he writing was made in the regular course ofa business; (b) The writing was made at or near the time ofthe act, condition, or event: (c) The Custodian or other qualified wimess tmtifies to its identity and the mode ofits preparation; and (d) The sources of information and method and time ofprepnmtion were such as to indicate its trustworthiness (e) To require the last and highest bidder to deposit, ifnot deposited previously. the full amount of the bidder’s final bid in cash, a cashier's check drawn on a state or national hank, a check drawn by a state or federal credit union, or a check drawn by a state or federal savings and loan association, savings association, or savings bank specified in Section 5102 ofthe Financial Code and authorized to do business in this state, or a cash equivalent which has been designated in the notice ofsale as acceptable to the trustee, immediately prior to the completion of the sale, the completion ofthe sale being so announced by the fall of the hammer or in another customary manner. The present beneficiary of the deed of trust under foreclosure shall have the right to ofl'set his or her hid or bids only to the extent of the total amount due the beneficiary including the trustee's fees and expenses wNH 10 11 12 13 l4 15 l6 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 m .,= =- ‘ . _ | I . \“ / -. u" I testimony to support the facts asserted within the document. Neither an attorney nor a realtor can attest to and testify as to the validity and truthfulness of the contents and recitals of the documents. California Evidence Code § 1561 requires Plaintiff to provide evidence about the source of information and how the TDUS was prepared; it is clear that the document was not prepared by Plaintiff but rather the improper Trustee claiming to have conducted the Trustee Sale. Defendants has the right to question the preparation and validity of the contents of the document. Defendant hereby objects to the TDUS and Corporation Grant Deed being entered into evidence as Defendants affirmative defense challenges the contents of the documents as hearsay. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Trustee Deed Upon Sale violates CCC § 2924h(b)(2) In Bank ofAmerica v. Lalolla Group II, 129 Cal.App. 4th 706, 710,717 (5th Dist. 2005) the Court found, "No statute creates a presumption - conclusive or otherwise - for any purchaser'- bona fide or otherwise - that any recitals in a trustee's deed render effective a sale that had no contractual basis." In this matter Defendant's Deed of Trust (Certified copy of pages 1 and 2, and the signature page of the Deed of Trust, Instrument Number XXXXXX, attached as "Exhibit 1") reflects that the Lender is Homefield Financial, Inc., MERS is the "nominee" of the Lender and its successor and/or assigns, and the Trustee is Fidelity National Title Company. In this matter Plaintiff relies on the recitals and "statutory presumption" of the Trustee Deed Upon Sale and Unlawful Detainer. "Statutory presumption" is afforded only to those Plaintiffs who verifii the complaint, not to attorney verifications; and second there dmmubLONH mm 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 1'7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 .z \K l -\I\ I ' I x /! \ a/ is no evidence that MERS or Homefield Financial, Inc has assigned the Note or Deed of Trust to the Monthi Krismanaram et al,. "Under such unlawful detainer statutes it has been held that title, to the extent required by section 11613, 'not only may, but must, be tried in such actions if the provisions of the statutes extending the remedy beyond the eases where the conventional relation of landlord and tenant exists are not to be judicially nullified.’ " (Seidell v. AngIo-California Trust Co., 55 Cal.App.2d 913, 920 [132 P.2d 12].) To same effect, see Hewitt v. Justice's Court, 131 Cal.App. 439, 443 [21 P.2d 641]; Kartheiser v. Superior Court (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 617, 620; See also Nineteenth Realgy Co. v. Diggs, 134 Cal.App. 278, 289 I25 P.2d 522] Furthermore, Kessler reaffirmed the jurisdiction of the unlawful detainer court to hear equitable defenses, specifically noting that the validity of the sale and trustee’s deed are properly raised as defense in an action under CCP 1161a(b)(3) Id. at 840. In an action for unlawful detainer, section 1161a requires proof that the property was "duly sold in accordance with Section 2924 of the Civil Code." Title, to the extent required by section 1161a, "not only may, but must, be tried in such actions." Kartheiser v. Superior Court (1959) 174 Call. App. 2d 617, 620. As such, the Trustee Deed Upon Sale naming "Nationstar Mortgage" as the foreclosing beneficiary who did a credit bid is in direct violation of CCC § 2924h(b)(2) and therefore possession MUST BE DENIED. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure to Comply with CCC § 2924(a)(l)(C) Plaintiff has the burden to demonstrate the sale was held in accordance with the law, Plaintiff needs to present evidence at trial showing the party that elected to conduct the sale under CCC § 2924(a)(l)(C) had the requisite legal authority to do so. The bMNI-i O\U1 10 11 12 l3 l4 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 fix r N. "electing beneficiary" must have legal power deriving from the original Note or Deed of Trust. Otherwise, the statute does not permit a sale to take place. In this matter, Nationstar Mortgage is the named Lender on the Note and Deed of Trust; Defendant denies Nationstar Mortgage has any rights to the Note and Deed of Trust Plaintiff has provided no evidence of how Nationstar Mortgage, LLC became the "foreclosing beneficiary". The statute does not empower a stranger to elect the remedy of sale. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Failure to Comply with CCC § 2924a Any notices listing Trustee Corps as the trustee were improper and incorrect, making the recitals in regards to the Notices, defective. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Subject Matter Exceeds Courts Jurisdictional Authority Subject matter jurisdiction is always an issue, whether or not raised in the trial court. See Consolidated Theatres, Inc. v. Theatrical Stage Employees Union, Local 16 (1968) 69 Cal.2d 713, 721; San Joaquin County Human Services Agency v. Marcus W. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 182, 187-188; Marriage of Oddino (1997) l6 Ca1.4th 67, 73; Keiffer v. Bechtel Corp. (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 893, 896. The Unlawful Detainer Court is a Limited Jurisdiction and as such lacks the jurisdiction in which to award title. If the Unlawful Detainer Court recognizes that title is at issue and needs to be awarded not just determined, then the Unlawful Detainer Court is obligated to reclassify the case to the unlimited jurisdiction, or stay the proceeding until the final outcome of the issues of title are resolved. "If the court in which the action is filed does not have the power to adjudicate the action, the proceedings are void." Marlow v. Campbell (1992) 7 Ca1.App.4th 921, 928, 9 Cal.Rptr.2d 516, 520. Defendant hereby does allege that the Trustee Deed Upon Sale is fatally defective and the Trustee Sale should be cancelled and set aside. Defendant realizes this is beyond this court jurisdiction and respectfully requests this matter be remanded to the appropriate Unlimited Jurisdiction Court. WNH 10 11 12 13 l4 15 l6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I I x x. \- 1 SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff Lacks The Bona Fide Purchaser Standing Defendants reasonably believe, on information readily available, that Plaintifi' does not have requisite legal standing as a Bona Fide Purchaser (BFP) considering that a recorded Notice ofLis Pendcns was in place and recorded prior to the Issuance ofthe Notice ofTrustee Sale and prior to the actual auction to bring this action against Defendants. The deed that Plaintifi‘puxports to have acquired at a trustee sale is not valid in that said sale was not conducted in compliance with applicable laws, further Plaintiff has not duly perfected such title Plaintiff claims, whereby Plaintiff is not the owner ofthe said property as claimed, or a real party in interest, and therefore lacks standing to bring this instant action. Plaintiff is therefore barred fiom any recovery or other remedial action herein. EIGHT AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff Proximatelx Caused and Substantially Contributed to Any Damages Defendants are informed and believe and therein allege that Plaintifi'was careless and negligent in and about matters alleged in the complaint, and such carelessness and negligence on the part of Plaintiffproximately and substantially contributed to the resulting incident and to the any injuries, loss, and damages, that the P‘laintifl‘ states to have sustained. Therefore, any damages that might otherwise be awarded Plaintiff, or another proper patty with standing, shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributed to Plaintifl‘. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintifi' was At Fault in Bring1_n' g About any Iniug or Loss Defendants are informed and believe and therein allege that any damages complained of by Plaintiff, if any, were directly and proximately caused, in whole or in part, by the negligence or other mode of fault attributable to other persons or entities, independent and apart fiom Defendants, and any such negligence or fault of third parties is not to be attributed to any liability ofDefendants, but rather is to be attributed to Plaintifi‘, either by reason of a relationship existing between Plaintifi‘ and any outside persons or entities, or comparatively as to reduce any potential lO ll 12 l3 l4 15 16 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 xx /,, liability on the part of Defendants, if any at all, in a manner reflecting Plaintiff’s proportion of comparative negligence or fault. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Doctrine of Estonpel Bars this Action Defendants are informed and believe and therein allege that Plaintiff is barred by the doctn'ne of estoppel fiom bringing this action against Defendants. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Plaintiff’s Conduct Herein Undulg Preiudices Defendants’ Legal Rights Defendants are informed and believe and therein allege that Plaintiff’s conduct in bringing this action against Defendants created an unreasonable delay in so filing this complaint, and such unreasonable delay has unduly prejudiced Defendants’ ability to participate fully in a fair manner in their defense, particularly because Plaintiff does not have the pertinent original signed documents necessary to prove the requisite prima facie elements of Plaintifl’s case. THIRTENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Doctrine of Unclean Hands Bars any Recovefl and Also this Action Defendants are informed and believe and therein allege that Plaintiff is barred by the doctrine of unclean hands flom bringing this action against Defendants. One may not come [to equity] with unclean hands. FOURTENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Doctrine of Laches Bars any Such Litigation Defendants arc informed and believe and therein allege that Plaintifi is hatred by the doctrine of laches fi'om bringing this action against Defendants. Although Defendants argue that Plaintiffhas no standing or other right to bring this complaint, even one who had, may not sit on his or her rights to the extent that such delay in seeking redress is objectively unreasonable. FIFI‘ENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Defective Notice The notice to vacate Plaintiff claims to have served upon Defendant was defective in that it did not provide this answering Defendant the time required by applicable laws and was not served pursuant to applicable laws. [See, inter alia, Code of Civil Procedure section 1161, United States Public Law 111-22 Title VII, Los Angeles City Ordinance 180,441] 10. \OQQONLnnthNH NMMNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH GNO‘LHDWNI-‘OkomdmmlwaI-‘O SIXTENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Ownershin of the Prone!!! is in Disgute Defendants are informed and believe, and thereby allege that said foreclosure was conducted improperly and in violation of applicable law rendering said foreclosure null and void or voidable, whereby fitle and right to ownership of said preperty is at issue and such issues should not be decided in an unlawful detainer case. (See Mehr v.Superior Court (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 1044, 1049, 189 Cal.Rpu: 138] SEVENTENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Damages, if any, Reguire Offset in Defendants’ Favor Defendants are informed and believe, and therein allege that Defendants are entitled to an ofi‘set of damages claimed by Plaintiff. EIGHTENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Lack of Privig Defendants are informed and believe, and therein allege that Defendants and Plaintiff maintain to status, position, or other relationship ofprivity between Defendants and Plaintifi‘. WHEREFORE, these answering Defendants do hereby pray that Plaintiff take nothing by this action, for costs of suit herein incurred and for such other and further relief that this court deems just and proper. DATED: Respeifully Su%'tted, a fl y?» t [,M ISIDO O TGKRESkpsi’gndant 0W: LU A TORRES, Defendant 11. de'luwaH mm 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 x -\ /, -.~- W . SUPPLEMENTAL: DEFENDANTS’ RIGHT TO RAISE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES WITH RESPECT T0 FORECLOSURE PROCEDURES IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTIONS There has been some apparent confusion as to whether a court heating an unlawful dctainer action may consider facts or matters not exclusively restricted to the unlawful retainer itself. For that reason Defendants herein request that this honorable Court permit Defendants this opportunity to state some authority for such considerations, and that in doing so, justice may be best served. In the First District in California, the Courts have allowed Defendants to file Affirmative Defenses. The second district, in Karen A. Clark v. Mahvash Mazgam' (Cal.App 1/7/2009, Cal.App. 2009), heard an appeal fiom the Superior Courts in Los Angeles County involving a cross-complaint to an unlawfill detainer and took no issue with whether it should have been filed in the first instance. The typical unlawful detainer action involves tenants wrongfully remaining in possession of the property afier violating terms oftheir leases. (Superior Motels, pages 505-506). That is not the case in the unlawful detainer actions based on foreclosure. Foreclosure-based cases involve owners of the property who have been wrongfully deprived of their real property afier an entity violates the non-judicial foreclosure procedural provisions in California Civil Code section 2924 and Califomia Code of Civil Procedure section 1161 a, in addition to federal pre-foreclosure default prevention procedures, such as those set forth in l2 USC 1710(a), 12 CFR 604, 12 CFR 605 and 7 CFR 1980. The non-judicial foreclosure procedure leading up to and including the trustee’s sale is the key issue in our affirmative defenses and counter-claims. In the case ofHutcherson v. Lehtin (N.D.Cal.1970) 3 13 F.Supp. I324, 1327, vacated and remanded (1970), 399 U.S. 522, 91 S.Ct. 182, 287 L.Ed.2d 182 (also see Poulsen, California Unlawful Detainer Procedure--A Proposed Legislative Change, 21 Hastings L.J. 491, 501 (1970)). The federal court felt that afirmative defenses and counter-claims were appropriate in theSe kinds of actions. 12. 10 11 12 l3 l4 15 l6 l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In 1100 Park Lane Associates v. Konrad Feldman, et al. (2008, 74 Ca1.Rptr.3d 1, 160 Ca1.App.4th 1467), the Defendants filed a cross-complaint to an unlawful detainer suit, alleging causes of action for retaliatory eviction, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment (in tort and in contract), wrongful eviction, breach of contract, and unfair business practices. The cross-complaint survived. In J.P. Murdock v. Mrs. Lofton, (1973, 107 Ca1.Rptr. 551, 553, 31 Cal.App.3d 981), the Com of Appeal for the First District stated that there were two exceptions to the general rule forbidding affirmative defenses and counter-claims. It discussed in detail its reason and determined that the statutes containing the procedures for summary possession ofreal property do not prohibit the assertion either of affirmative defenses or counterclaims in answers to unlawful detainer actions. The statutes containing the procedures for summary possession of real property do not prohibit the assertion either of affirmative defenses or counterclaims in answers to unlawful detainer actions. Instead, the prohibition against counterclaims, cross-complaints and set-ofi‘s in unlawful detainer actions has been the result ofjudicial interpretation. (Cf. Hutcherson v. Lehtin (N.D.Cal.l970) 3 13 F.Supp. 1324, 1327, vacated and remanded (1970), 400 U.S. 923, 91 S.Ct. 182, 287 L.Ed.2d 182; Poulsen, California Unlawful Detainer ProcedurwA Proposed Legislative Change, 21 Hastings L.J. 491, 501(1970). Section 1170 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that in a summary proceeding for the possession of real property ‘the defendant may appear and answer or demur. ’ (emphasis added). “This has been construed as limiting a defendant to those pleading and as excluding the use of a cross-complaint. ( Tide Water Assoc. Oil Co. v. Superior Court (1955) 43 Cal.2d 815, 824, 279 P.2d 35; Schubert v. Lowe (1924) 193 Cal. 291, 294-295, 223 P. 550.)” (J.P. Murdock v. Mrs. Lofzon, at 554). Section 1177 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that “Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter the provisions of Part 2 of this Code [sections 307 to 1062a] are applicable to, and constitute the rules of practice in the proceedings mentioned in this Chapter.” “Exceptions to the rule have been recognized. For example, when the issue of possession is removed fiom the case, such as where the tenant has voluntan’ly surrendered possession before the issues of fact are joined, the reason for the rule disappears, and the defendant is permitted to seek affirmative relief. ( Union Oil Co. v. Chandler, supra, 4 Cal.App.3d p. 722, 84 Cal.Rptr. 756; Knowles v. Robinson, supra, 60 Cal.2d p. 625, 36 Cal.Rptr. 33, 387 P.2d 833; Turem v. Texaco, Inc. (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 758, 763, 46 Cal.Rptr. 389; Cohen v. Superior Court (1967) 248 Cal.App.2d 551, 554, m. 5, 56 Cal.RptI. 813.). . .” (J.P. Murdock v. Mrs. Lofion, at 554). 13. 10 ll l2 l3 l4 15 l6 17 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 “More recently, the courts, noting that the ‘interest in preserving the summary nature of an action cannot outweigh the interest of doing substantial justice’ (Abstract Investment Co. v. Hutchinson (1962) 204 Cal.Aprd 242, 249, 22 Cal.Rptr. 309, 3 l4, cited with approval in Schweiger v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Ca1.3d 507, 5 14, 90 Cal.Rptr. 729, 476 P.2d 97), have begun to recognize defenses based on ‘broad equitable principles.’”(Id.). “Thus, in Abstract Investment C0. v. Hutchinson, supra, the court recognized a constitutional defense to an unlawful detainer action, i.e., that an eviction was being sought solely because of race and in Schweiger v. Superior Court, supra, at page 515, 90 Ca1.Rptr. at page 733, 476 P.2d at page 101, the court recognized a defense based upon the exercise of statutory rights (retaliatory eviction), reasoning as follows: ‘The same interest in ‘substantial justice’ protected in Abstract Investment demands that a landlord be prevented fi-om invoking judicial assistance to punish a tenant by eviction because the tenant sought to exercise rights expressly granted by statute. And the right not to be deprived in court of home and shelter because of the exercise of statutory rights is a ‘broad equitable principle’ as deserving of protection as the right to equal protection under the law. Thus, the sound reasoning ofAbstract Investment, which imposes an equitable limitation on the punitive power of landlords to evict their tenants, applies with persuasive force to the instant action to prohibit eviction in retaliation against the exercise ofstatutory rights.’ ”(Id. at 555). When “unclean hands ” is alleged, that allows the court to hear affirmative defenses. As in a case were an allegedlyfraudulentforeclosure has been carried out by the veryparty who is now bringing the unlawfid detainer action. And, equity also allows the court to inquire into affirmative defenses and that the summary nature of these kinds ofproceedings should not outweigh doing substantial justice. The Murdock court cited t0 Schubert v. Lowe, 193 Cal. 291, 295-296 [223 P. 550]; Johnson v. Chely, 43 Cal. 299, 305; Manning v. Franklin, 81 Cal. 205, 207-208 [22 P. 550]; Pico v. Cuyas, 48 Cal. 639, 642;Gray v. Maier & Zobélein Brewery, 2 Cal.App. 653, 658 [84 P. 280]; Knight v. Black, 19 Cal.App. 518, 525-527 [126 P. 512]; Rishwain v. Smith, 77 Cal.App.2d 524, 531 [175 P.2d 555]; Strom v. Union Oil Co., 88 Ca1.App.2d 78, 83 [198 P.2d 347]; Abstract Irzv._Co. v. Hutchinson, 204 Ca1.App.2d 242, 247-248.) (Also see Abstract Investment_Co. v. Hutchinson (1962) 204 Ca1.App.2d 242, 249, 22 Ca1.Rptr. 309, 314, cited with approval in Schweiger v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Ca1.3d 507, 5 14, 90 Cal.Rptr. 729, 476 P.2d 97.) InAbstract Investment Co. v. Hutchinson, supra, the court recognized a constitutional defense to an unlawful detainer action, i.e. that an eviction was being sought solely because of l4. 10 ll 12 13 l4 15 l6 17 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~ , x\>\ ‘/ k f race. The language “substantial justice” was used as something that basically compelled the court to hear the defense. Similarly in Schweiger v. Superior Court, supra, at page 515, 90 Cal. Rptr. at page 733, 476 P.2d at page 101, the court recognized a defense based upon the exercise of statutory rights (retaliatory eviction), reasbning as follows: 'The same interest in 'substantial justice' protected in Abstract Investment demands that a landlord be prevented from invoking judicial assistance to punish a tenant by eviction because the tenant sought to exercise rights expressly granted by statute. In Vella v. Hudgens, 20 Cal. 3d 251 (Cal. 1977), the Conn identified a qualified exception to the rule that title cannot be tried in unlawful detainer actions to include certain purchasers of property. The court stated that one who purchases property at a trustee’s sale and seeks to evict the occupant in possession must show that he acquired the property at a regularly conducted sale and thereafier “duly perfected” his title. “The municipal court, in Hudgins’ unlawful detainer action, was empowered to examine the conduct of the trustee's sale (if its validity had been challenged), and properly could consider whatever equitable defenses Vella might have raised insofar as they pertained directly to the right ofpossession.” (Vella v. Hudgens, at 256). “A qualified exception to the rule that title cannot be tried in unlawfill detainer is contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a, which extends the summary eviction remedy beyond the conventional landlord-tenant relationship to include certain purchasers of property such as Hudgins. Section 11613 provides for a narrow and sharply focused examination of title. To establish that he is a proper plaintiff, one who has purchased property at a trustee's sale and seeks to evict the occupant in possession must show that he acquired the property at a regularly conducted sale and thereafier ‘duly perfected’ his title. ( § 116Ia, subd. 3.) Thus, we have declared that ‘to this limited extent, as provided by the statute, title may be litigated in such a proceeding.’ (Cheney v. Trauzettel, supra, 9 Cal.2d at p. 159.)” (1d,). The Vella Court was concerned that a defendant may not be given a full and fair opportunity to litigate claims in the unlawful detainer action that reach to title, and that res judicata would bar those later claims. The court determined that defendant’s failure to litigate fi'aud issues by way of a counter-claim in the unlawful detainer action would not be a bar to their subsequent prosecution in another action. There is nothing inconsistent with this concept and the right of a defendant to litigate those narrow non-judicial foreclosure procedural provisions in a counter-complaint in the unlawfill detainer action. The litigation of those issues in the unlawful detainer action is defendant’s voluntary submission to res judicata being a bar to a later prosecution. 15. \OQQQUIDQJNH t-II-II-II-I wNHo 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1' \‘\_/ K ’I Those statutory procedural requirements of non-judicial foreclosure have an immediate and ofien devastating efi‘ect on owners ofproperty who’s title is taken without benefit of a court proceeding. The only thing between such owners and the street is compliance with those procedures. In the case where a stranger to the agreement signs his own name to a recorded document to change the trustee to another entity or to change the beneficiary ofthe Deed of Trust to another entity, and then they sell the property to themselves, the statute has been violated and the owner winds up on the street. A counter-claim in this case would be necessary to have the title revert back to the original owner. The affirmative defenses and counter-claims need not be complex or take any extra time for the court to resolve. The minimal affirmative defense case can be based in whole strictly upon certified copies ofthe documents ofrecord located in the omce of the County Recorder. The court need merely look at the face ofthese documents to see the procedural errors and make a determination as to whether the procedures were or were not complied with. If the procedures were not complied with, the court can order the sale to be re-noticed and re-done, or in the factual scenario stated above, the court could set aside the transfer ofthe deed and the true and original beneficiary and trustee could then proceed as they see fit. None of this detracts from the summary nature ofthe unlawful detainer because it will all either be obvious to the court on the documents or not. This would still permit the parties to address fraud in another proceeding, but it would clearly and certainly resolve for all time the procedural defects claimed. Currently, the form on a counter-complaint provides a box to remove the case fiom the limited jurisdiction for the unlawful detainer action to unlimited jurisdiction of the Superior Court. It appears that the legislature firmly believed that an unlawful detainer action is an appropriate forum to challenge the procedural provisions for non-judicial foreclosure as set forth in Cal. Civil Code section 2924 and California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a. 16. V ~J’ kg POS-040 A‘I'I‘ORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUTATTORNEY (Name. State Bar number. and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY ISIDORO V TORRES. PRO SE ‘tUZVIMINDA V TORRES, PRO SE 1898 SEAVIEW DRIVE SAN JOSE, CA 95122 TELEPHONE N0; 408-205-581 1 FAX N0. {Oph’maf}: E-MAIL ADDRESS (OpMna/J: AWORNEY FOR (Name): SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STREErADDREss: 191 N. Flrst St., MAILING ADDRESS: same cm’AND ZIP CODE: San Jose, CA 951 13 BRANCH “AME San Jose Court PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER: BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016 DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: ISIDORO TORRES and LUZVIMINDA TORRES CASE NUMBER PROOF 0F SERVIce-CIVIL 180V330546 Check method of service (only one):E By Personal Service By Mail D By Ovemlght Delivery JUDGE:E By Messenger Service E3 By Fax a By Electronic Service DE?“ 11 (Do not use this proof of service to show service of a Summons and complaint.) 1. At the time of service I was over 18 years of age and not a party to thls action. 2. My residence or business address is: 100 N Brand Blvd.,Suite 14 Glendale, CA 91203 3. D The fax number or electronic service address from which I sewed the documents is (complete ifservice was by fax or electronic service): 4. On (date): August ‘10, 2018 l served the foIlowing documents (specify): Defendants's Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint for Unlawful Detainer Action The documents are listed in the Attachment to Proofof Service-Civil (Documents Served) (form POS-040(D)). 5. I served the documents on the person or persons below. as follows: a. Name of person served: BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016 b. (Complete if service was by personal service, mail, overnight delivery, or messenger service.) Business or residential address where person was served: BRECKENRIDGE PROPERTY FUND 2016 do Sam Chandra SEN 203942 Law Office of Sam Chandra, APO, 710 S Myrtle Ave.. fl 800 Monrovia. CA 91018 c. m (Complete if service was by fax or electronic service.) (1) Fax number or electronic service address where person was served: (2) fime of service:D The names, addresses, and other appliuble in formation about persons served is on the Attachment (o Proof of Service-Civil (Persons Served) (form POS-040(P)). 6. The documents were served by the foIlowing means (specify): a. E By personal service. | personally delivered the documents to the persons ai the addresses listed in item 5. (1) For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the attomey or at the attorney’s ofiice by leaving the documents. in an envelope or package clearly labeled to identify the atto mey being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office. between the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party‘s residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. P3901 013 FothppmvedforOptlona! Use _c CodeotCMPmcedute.§§1010.6.1011. 1013.10133. Judlda! Coundl of Califotrfla PROOF OF SERVICE IVIL 2016.6: Cal. Rates ot Court. rules 2.260. 2.306 Pos-ow [Rem Juty 1. 20111 (Proof of Service) www.caudsmgav 4 Pos-o4o CASE NAME: CASE NUMBER: BRECKENRmeE PROPERTY FUND 201s vs ISIDORo TORRES and LUZVIMINDA TORRES 1ecv330546 6. b. By United sates mail. l enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5 and (specify one): (1) E deposited the sealed envelope with the United States Postal Service, with the postage fully prepaid. (2) placed the envelope for collection and mailing. following our ordinary business practices. l am readily familiar with this business's practice for collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection an d mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid. l am a resident or employed in the county where the mailing occurred. The envelope or package was placed in the mail at (city and state): Glendale, CA c. E By ovemlght delivery. I enclosed the documents in an envelope or package provided by an ovemtght delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses in item 5. I placed the envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a regulariy utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carn’er. d. E By messenger service. l served the documents by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed In item 5 and providing them to a professional messenger service for service. (A declaration by the messenger must accompany this Proof of Service or be contained in the Declamtion of Messenger below.) e. D By fax transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties to accept sen/ice by fax transmission. l faxed the documents to the persons at the fax numbers listed in item 5. No error was reported by the fax machine that I used. A mpy of the record of the fax transmission, which l printed out, Is attached. f. D By electronic service. Based on a court order or an agreement of the pa rues to accept electronic service. l caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic service addresses listed in item 5. | deciare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Date: August 10, 201 8 Nora Echaure b W (TYPE 0R PRINT NAME OF DECLARANT) / (SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT) {lfftem 6d above is checked, the declaration below must be completed or a separate declaration from a messengermust be attach ed.) DECLARATION 0F MESSENGER E By personal service. I personally delivered the envelope or package received from the dedarant above to the persons at the addresses listed in item 5. (1 ) For a patty represented by an attomey. delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's office by leaving the documents in an envelope or package, which was clearly labeled to identify the attorney being served, with a receptionist or an individual in charge of the office, be tween the hours of nine in the morning and five in the evening. (2) For a party. delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence with some person not younger than 18 years of age between the hours of eight in the morning and six in the evening. At the time of service, [was over 18 years of age. | am not a party to the above-reterenced legal proceeding. | served the envelope or package, as stated above, on (date): l declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Catifomia that the foregoing is true and correct Date: (NAME 0F DECLARANT) (SIGNATURE 0F DECLARANT) Page 2 ot 3 Womevnlulytzom PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL (Proof of Servlce) L 1; “ ~ ’ Pos-o4o INFORMATION SHEET FOR PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL (This information sheet is not part of the official proof of service form and does not need to be copied, served, or filed.) USE 0F THIS FORM Note: This proof of service form should not be used to show proof of service of a summons and complaint. For that purpose, use Proofof Service of Summons (form POS-01 0). This form is designed to be used to show proof of service of documents by (1) personal service, (2) mail, (3) overnight delivery, (4) messenger service, (5) fax, or (6) electronic transmission. Certain documents must be personally served. For example. an order to show cause and temporary restraining order generally must be served by personal delivery. You must determine whether a document must be personally delivered or can be served by mail or another method. GENERAL INSTRUC‘HONS A person must be over 18 years of age to serve the documents. The person who served the documents must complete the Proof of Service. A party to the action cannot serve the documents. The Proof of Service shouId be typed or printed. If you have lntemet access. a fillable version of this proof of service form is available at www.courts.ca.gov/forms.htm. Complete the top section of the proof ofservice form as follows: First box left side: In this box print the name, address. and telephone number of the person forwhom you served the documents. Second box left side: Print the name of the county in which the legal action is filed and the court's address in this box. The address for the court should be the same as the address on the documents that you sewed. Third box left side: Print the names of the plaintiff/petitioner and defendant/respondent in this box. Use the same names as are on the documents that you served. Fourth box lefl side: Check the method of service that was used. You should check only one method of service and should show proof of only one method on the form. If you served a party by several methods, use a separate form to show each method of service. First box. tog of form, n'ght side: Leave this box blank for the court's use. Second box, right side: Print the case number in this box. The wse number shouid be the same as the case number on the documents that you served. Third box, right side: State the judge and department assigned to the case. if known. Complete items 1-6: 1. You are stating that you are over the age of 18 and that you are not a party to this action. 2. Print your home or business address. 3. If senrice was by fax service or electronic service. print the fax number or electronic service address from which service was made. 4. List each document that you served. If you need more space, check the box in item 4. complete the Attachment to Proof of Service-Civil (Documents Served) (form POS-O40(D)). and attach it to form POS-040. 5- Provide the names, addresses, and other applicable information about the persons served. If more than one person was sewed, check the box on item 5, complete the Attachment to Proof of Service-Civil (Persons Served) (form POS-O40(P)), and attach it to form POS-O40. 6. Check the box before the method of service that was used. and provide any additional information that is required. The law may require that documents be served in a particular manner (such as by personal delivery) for certain purposes. Service by fax or electronic transmission generally requires the prior agreement of the parties. You must sign and date the proof of service form. By signing. you are stating under penalty of perjury that the information that you have provided on form POS-O40 is true and correct. Page 3 013 Pos-oao [RemJuIy 1.2011] PROOF OF SERVICE-CIVIL (Proof of Service) Torres -. *7 . ’“ 1404351495195 M sum-iso SUMMONS ‘W mmpmmnsum {CITACION JUDICIAL) UNLAWFUL DETAINER-swcnom EFILED (REI'ENCIémLictTA DEWMUEHLHESALOJO) mam 8 12,46 PM NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: 15id°r° V Tamms" Liuzvimda P Toms Clerk of cod“ (AWSOALDE‘MNWO): Do 1 10 Superior Court o‘f CA. es m County of Santa Clara YOU ARE BENE- SUE BY PLAIN'K'IFF: _ _ . Do EL Damn“ ma: Basmaznaz PROPERTY 180y330546 gigngggfs, LLCNDAN Rewewed By: G- Reyes Yamscufiflmumsmths summits and ugapapammsmeu onymmfileamflen soapy swanammwalnflf.fiomuwfmdm.wmsmmdaymfl5uflny.huldonotmmiolhueauflham lflswaymml Saurmyfimayfiemmwmwmmenmmduybflbawnummme.) Ahfimaflwmudlmamlpmuynmhmmmmambehmyamgwmflmmmemninhwmmmmwmammeumnmemmpm. Youm mamas mnhnnsmumhfmafionatmomflhmh Calm owns BelI-Heip Genie (www.mwhiamanfiseflwm mummy ' u Jawahmvymrihecmnhousensm u.flyoucannntpaymemmmaskflwmwmmrafawaiwbmifymdonollflnmraspmsoon “*- m.ymmayhseihaeasehywxul andyourwaga.mmy,mdpmeflymaybemkamnmwmmmngmmam mmmofiwrmmqmm.Yournnywmoaumnnmeylfihtmy.uyaudomlhuowanamw.youmnymnmmnmeihmywmuwmmmmmydoummmmmmmlegarsm'iwfimanmpmfilmsmuspwvwmmaWW5!“mthaCaIHmfiaLmsaflawMah[mumwmmm.mmmumhcmmamw(mWMMLaWMmemmWVb-rmdmHmmmrBSamrynenmmhesmd castswanysemannmorammtbnmdowamormmadvnmmmflshnmuubepmmmmmmmam MasonsDEWO dmvés 49 qua £9 emaguen oar: MyMsbgmpmmmunaWu-am pwcsaioanesm n - moymmu'aw mmmmmmrdemm-(Pmmmmmmdrasmuamtmamybswnfmsmnommms- ‘ “ ~~stmwaslslmdrwmwmobmoanmwmmmMeswmm ummammrbmm mmnmsmspmstapwesafmj. Wearhomalbmda lambs nolommsm Sumpuesm panama Sane qua enummhbw candoa‘Mwamsanwmwhm Esmfibqwmmmmtbqwmmmmmmm mmmmr omflmmlan‘udchcotbyméslnfiamwmmammwAm-émmdamammmgw, mbh’hfialwedelaynsde summommmqmbqwdamdsmsampumpaynmmmmmwmfldanaehfiodammmqwbdémmmbwmwmflnammannmwmammpmwmflmpammfimmhya mummwswdo, Mmyhismsdnmmtw. HnyntmsMama mmmmdablaqua name a mahoganhiamadumm. Sfpamamabogada. Mahwamsm dammiaffiwa abcyndas. Sinamdepegsra mahcgada. espas‘h‘eqnsamphav {mmmwmpm amwmfimlosalmmlumaa mWasmmammnammammamsmahfimsdomenddfiamdawmugmmMammw, mutanhdemuadehsmlmfle mmMW}om”mmawodmammMAmmmhmmammemmmymmmwmrmmm cmMa-Jemmwnda mama mdsdavdarrefim Mammamema mmanaammmmdommm 17mmmdmmndahmrmmwwmmpMdasde 1‘ memeandadnmssdthe cautiasnesuoa com 0E CALIFORNIA. m 130v330545(EWYd'mablamw:mTY 0F SAN”. CW 191 N. First St. San Jose, Ch 951.13 00mm §UPER_IOR com w2_ Tham.address.mte£phonemmberofpta‘mfifls afianaeymnplmnfiffwflhomananamxlsaw . . . - (anagram, Ia o'r‘macrén yemamem de uémno d3} abagado dd wmapdpnte, o damags tic fiana abnyado. ea).- ILav Ozfzces cf PC3am Chandra SB" 2°39” no s. Myzhie me” b‘ 600 1626) 255-4999 . mourovla, m 91016-2171 3. gust“ mmmdinaflcases)m unimiuldawnarésslw (Bus. a amt. .cwa, §§mu-saw) E did mtD um ‘ mpamlicn due adobe urasistamewah Ms to .. If ' D m.mmWm a 0,, mmm m ‘ FZW””5" 223:: ””8”” “" ”W m 72/201 a 12:46 PM =R- W ' 3W m I I Clerk Of court W (Mmb) (Furpmuf ofswvbs dark 55:11am use Proofof Serving ofSunmms (form POS-OfOM (Pam pmahs de entrega de ests moan use elfamulen‘a Prcol afSau'ce of Summons. (POS-owfl- lsgm 4. nonse'ro'ma 95230» SERVED.- Vouazeseww ‘ a. as an mmw defamam. b. m fire pemm sued under the fiw'fims name d(qnecbj’): c. as an'oecupant " d. on mini (madly: mar. E3 cc? 415.10 (commuon) E3 ccp 41630 (minus: GCP 415.20ch corporation) C3 CCP 416.70 (commaD ccp 41am (assau'mson or pammaflp) a COP 416.90 (mama puma) cop 415.43 (mam) E mammal: 5. E] . byparsanaldemewm mate): gm SUMONS-UNLAWFUL DETAINER-ENIC‘RON waampmsuzmlmfia, us?Wow' Duns-Buu-tmmw.awx.m Tones .f‘x-VI I‘- I B p .2 V III. '\._, W30 PLAINflFFWamo): Breckenridge Pumy Md 2016' “C “SEN : umnmfllm‘” 155.com v Torxes._e_=_a_l_ e. Udawful daminar mum: (complete prlm'nflfi has received any help or advice rorpayfiam an mum datdnerassistant): 3- Asslstanrs lame: b. Telephone m: 5- Streetam a1". and 21p: d- eoumy onegisuafiom e. Reglatrallon nu: f. Registrafionemimsonldats): mmmmm summons-umwvmuamm-ancmu mm" Torres fl '"-“‘E44951 95 p.3 cumin _RTTDR)EYOR PARTYWTHmITAm (”Em smfi‘mWm WRWUSEWY Sam Chandra SEN 203942 Law Offices of Sm Chandra, AFC 710 s. Myrtle Ave. , 2 600 mnfign'gémm 9101?:'11 mum ectronicaily Filedwnm Pm“??? r . Superior Court of CA,mwfllmm E .4 I ' 3m m unty of Santa Clara,”1 “‘ “r5“ s" mama 12'46 PMmm San Jose. ca 95113 ° . _ ' mmnmm SAN JOSE COURT Viewed By. G. Reyesmung: ' se #1 8CV330546 af‘e‘fiéégfiige Property Fund 2016. LLC v Torres EnveIOpe: 1682377 cMLcAsecogswa commas” mama “55W 18cv330546 mfid mm a Countar D Jolnm demanded maems mdwxm rm appeaxam byMum “a ameeds $25M 825.009 arm) (Cal. Rams afCamt, rude 3.402) Dan: Items 1-6bakwmuslhe completeness Wan: on m2)- 1. Chedmnahox belowfartm msetypematbestdacdbas miscaae: Autn 7nd. Comm Mammy Cam: m8 LiamD Bmfim mmofcom NISSAN”?flmofia amw (D6) ummumd motmm (4a _ D me 3.740 medians (cg) E3 Anwm ragununn (03) ‘-umrpwmmonamprymany--E--omareouewmtwr-‘. ------- a ~ounsuuwna-dafiact'flc)mm mm) Ton {mmm3, (13) I mummy E W104) U om‘ercammm) D Sewfllasmnaa)Mufimmgz HS} Emmy Bwammwwcm (30)m mam 3mmWm mislugmonmmupomnm) Memmm mm'e’flmg m "me mmmwn (cum) ran E] mm mam m) type:man mmmuflimuspmm D mfilfflfll FWQS} . EHWMOEtOmemE cm 59m (us) animal mains: D Enigma: nriwgmsnlan) Detamm (13) COM! G1) Hilcalm aw Gunphlmm gs; E Reamm D mm m, Inmwnmmmy (15) ' PMS (36) D mmmmmmspamdmjm Premium] nesngm w) Emu Rama; “Ducdm “a Pwflm Other nwmwu muss) m '° “m (05’ 9mm mu wanm (21) En man: D Petuhme. mummmmm) D ommmmaafiwmmmngmnmumwm 66} D MdMemD omampmymuns D mlwumsmms) 2 Thisma D is E ism: Wundemteamootmma nutsotcmuaremiscmlmmamme facwts mquifing mpfinnai We! managementAD lagenumherafsemtaymplesentadpafies d.glmgsnmnherofwimemsum enenssve mason pmflue raising mantamve: e.Ecmwnwma mmmwngzn manure nuns Emma“!!! be i'me-causuming to rasulve In awercwmtes. states. or mhes. or In a feasts com subsmmialmwu ofdocunwmary evidence f Dmm mfiudgmant magi superman . S. Ramada mughttdmfiraflfim apply): am mnemry hm norm'metary. dadamry 4'. Number of ausas of miter! (Specify): one unlawful detaine: 5. 11:75:33: D is E {snot admsacfionsm'l. 6. Inhere areanylmwn remedcmflleandsewea name afreiaiedcase. 51-. mm 07/02/18 3m Chandra ‘ § maonvfim’wfi NOTICE oFWfifimustfiletthfirectwflhmefirflpaper flied in 1119anme(m smwddms mes mcases filed gm??? Pmbate Code. Family Code. «Wm: and Insflmfim Cadiz). (Cal. Rules of court. rule 3.220.) Faihue to file nay result S Oils. ° Fuemis margieazinaddflbntoanymversheetrequredbyluzalwmtmxa I fimismsaismmpatmwnne admeisequfflaCaflfunflaRmesoicoun ynumustmeaoopyotmbmsheetunan other padiestolha acfan urpromefim. o Uniaes thh b a calm ease under rule 3 740 aracampbx case. ihis mverdtaatwill be used for dai’stiaalpmpcsas an . m lmmm OPP ‘WMATIURNEY FMPAHTVI immhmufi chLcAsE comm mmammmmmaflt . .WM mwumfinmma‘mmow RN. writ. 2N7] m Torres 140844951 95 p.4 410 INS‘IRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET cm To Ptalntifis and omens Flllng First Papers. It you are filing a first paper (for example. a complaint) In a dull ease. you mmt compute and file. dong with yourfitst paper. me 0W Case Cover Sheet contained 0n page 1. Th‘s infinrmaflon will be used to compiie Malia about the types and numbers of cases med. You must oompisze Ilems 1 through 5 on me sheet. In Hem 1, you must check one box for the case type that bat desaims me case. If the mse fils both a general and a more speciflctype of mse l‘sted in llem 1. chad: the mare specific one. 1| the use has munme muses of action. cheek the box that best indicates the pdmaw mm a! acfion. To asslsi you in completing the sheet. examples of the mses that belong undsr each case type ln item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be fled only with your Initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet wflh the first paper filed in a clvlt case may subject a party. Its counsel. ar both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parfles h Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A “oolleflom case" under n13 3.740 is defined as an aulcn tor recovery of money owed in a sum stated Io be certain that ls not more than $25,000, excludve of intet'ast md attorney’s fees. arming horn atransaafion In whim pmaty. samba. or money was acquired m nredi. A mienfinns me does not include an swan seeking the Wag: (1) taut damages. [2) pufifive dmagw, (3) recovezy of teal propeny. (4) recovery of pawns! property. or (5) a prejudgment wnt of attachment The identifical’mn of a case as a rule 3.740 coltecttons case on thls farm means that It wIl be exempt from the general flme-tnr-sewtae requiremunts and case management rules. unlas a defendant mas a tesponstue pteadlrtg. A rule 3.740 oottactions mse th be subject to the requirements far sewiae and obtaining a judgmant tn mle 3.740. To Pantes tn Conlplex Cases. tn complex cases ody. parties must also use the CM! Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the ease Is complex. If a plaintiff batiwes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the Cafifornia Rules of Court. this must be indicated by oomptatihg the approptiate boxes In items 1 and 2. It a plaintiff daignatss a use as complex. the cover sheet must be served with the oamptaiht m a! names to the acfion. A defendant may fits and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a iotndar In the platnfifi’s dedgnation. a counter-designalton that the case is nut complex. 0t. E the platnttfi has made no designaflan. a destgnatton that the wee ts Wat. CASE TYPB Mm muss Auto Tait thd Pravlalonltly complex cwll Llltgnflon (Cal. Auto (azrpemnd InjouPmparty Breach o! Conh-acWmeht (06) Rules o! Court Ruins JMHM) ‘ 93mm; Death Breach n! RantavLease D Antttnmtmude Regutatton {03) uninsured mats; (4s) (mm ' Centred (not unharfutdsbmar Consttuwoh Dated (10) case s an mfinstuad or wmngfut evicb‘m) Gm: mwhttng Mass Tort (40)mgdm3m” CuntmaMamty Bmda-Sener Securtt'as wgauun (25) Wham, chockttusltem Ptatntifunat fiawamafigam) Envhnmmntnttl'axic Tun (30) hated ammo} MEI?“ Bmch Of Donna! Inauianea Coverage Olga?” 0 P ml t I mm? mayhem pmvtflcn ymmrwwnggnmmmgmggw Othar Brandt ot Conuameriy nae htpa fistad above} (41) 1mg Colecuons (3.9.. monay owed. apart Enforcemmt of Judgmnt Asbestos (O4) Wk 8mm!!!) (39) Enfmmmutt a! Judgment (20) Mbeaos Pmpmy Damago Oolecttnn Wale: Ptaihtflf Abstract oi Judgmutt {Out ot Asbestos Petsoml triutyl Othar Pmascrv NotaICoItediatm Comm Wrought Damn 0m . . Comm of-tmtsmam tmn- pmduc: unsung: (mtmama or "Wm” “Wm” {N’WWW dammit: :atattaus)mmmmnmo (24) “mpmflm smorsuta Judgment Medial uatpmdm (45) NM SWNSB‘W‘ Administrative Agency Award Medal Mutyadlco- Olhw Coverage (not unpatd taxes) Phyuldana 8n Surgeons Other Contract (37) PefltionIOertifmtton OI Entry o! Otha Pmbadonal Health Cm Contractual Pram Judgmom On Um“ Tms Malpmdtm omarComd mam: Ohggrtomemntotdudgment Other Pmm) Rani Franny ° Premises Lmny (8.9.. 35p fin'mant Domainnmerse Mlamlamoua OM! Complaint and ran) Condemnation (14) RICO t2?) ' tuenaumteowty Intmymtmo mtgmambn (33) 01mg?! (notspanfed (94.. uscwE. vandalism) cam Rm] pmam, e. H femh "“9“th "midi” Of Witt of Passenlén go! a:al Prgatrt?) ?wa’mm Ramon” Emothna! Dbtrus Mm” pmdawre flitmdh'e Refiaf Only (non- nl--n....s M“ .4- m.” WI. mmmg .I I I \ _’ \\_/I PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT | am over the age of 18 and not a party to this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding. My business address is: 100 N Brand Blvd.,Suite 14 Glendale, CA 91203 A true and correct copy ofthe foregoing document entitled: Notice of Removal will be served or was served (a) on the judge in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in the manner stated below: 1. TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING [NEH Pursuant to contlolling General Orders and LBR. the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and hypeflink to the document. On bate) l checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the following persons are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the email addresses stated below: The case trustee and U.S. Trustee will be automatically sewed by the Court at their email address. See NEF for confirmation of electronlc transmission to the U.S. Tmstee and any trustee in this case, and to any attorneys who receive service by NEF. D Service information continued on attached page 2. SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAlL- On (date) . l served the following persons andlor entities at the last known addresses in this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy thereof ln a sealed envelope in the United States mail. first class. postage prepaid. and addressed as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that mailing to the judge will be comgleted no later than 24 hours after the document is filed. m Service information continued on attached page 3. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY. OVERNIGHT MAIL. FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OR EMAILtslate method for each person or entig served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 andlor controlling LBR, on (date) , l served the following persons andlor entities by personal delivery. overnight mail service, or (for those who consented in writing to such service method). by facsimile transmission and/or email asfollows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that personal delivery on, or overnight mail to, the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed. U Service information continued on attached page I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. 08/10/2018 Nora Echaure Date Pn'nted Name / Signature