Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HART v. RUSHMORE
HART v. RUSHMORE
Assigned for all purposes to: Santa Monica Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Mark Epstein
Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 10/15/2021 10:14 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by M. Mohammadi,Deputy Clerk
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
10
GUY HART, an individual, Case No.:
11
20
21 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
22
23
24
PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS
25
1. In the case at hand, Plaintiff was current on his loan until the COVID-19 pandemic began
26
and, due to a COVID-19 hardship, he was placed into a forbearance agreement. Since the
27
forbearance ended, Defendants have pushed to foreclose on Plaintiff without reviewing Plaintiff
28
1
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1 for any loss mitigation options and without providing Plaintiff with a reinstatement quote, per
2 Plaintiff’s many requests. In short, Defendants are attempting to capitalize on Plaintiff’s COVID-
5 2. This is an action asserting violations of California State Law. These claims arise out of
6 the same controversy or sequence of events. Plaintiff is a property owner who brings this action
7 based on Defendants pursuit of foreclosure on Plaintiff’s property located at 2930 Neilsen Way
8 #306, Santa Monica, CA 90405 (hereinafter the “Property”). Venue is proper in this Court
9 because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims herein occurred in the County of
10 Los Angeles.
11 3. The court has personal jurisdiction over the parties as all Defendants engage in business
12 within the State of California. Defendants’ business involves providing mortgage loans and
14 PARTIES
15 4. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff is the owner of the Property located at 2930
17 5. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
20 banking and/or related business and was the servicer of the loan secured by Plaintiff’s property
21 during the time periods alleged herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
23 6. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that
24 ZBS LAW, LLP (hereinafter “ZBS”) is a law firm that is acting as the trustee of the loan secured
25 by Plaintiff’s property during the time periods alleged herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes
26 and thereon alleges that ZBS regularly conducts business in the State of California.
27
28
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1 AGENCY ALLEGATIONS
2 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned,
3 each Defendant was acting as the agent, servant, employee, partner, co-conspirator, and/or joint
4 venture of each remaining Defendant. Each Defendant was acting in concert with each remaining
5 Defendant in all matters alleged, and each Defendant has inherited any and all violations or
6 liability of their predecessors-in-interest. Additionally, each Defendant has passed any and all
7 liability to their successors-in-interest, and at all times were acting within the course and scope of
9 STATEMENT OF FACTS
10 8. Plaintiff is the current owner of the property located at 2930 Neilsen Way #306, Santa
11 Monica, CA 90405.
12 9. Plaintiff purchased the property in 1998 and has resided there as his primary residence
14 10. In 2004, Plaintiff obtained a first lien loan secured by the property in the amount of
16 11. In 2019, servicing of the loan transferred to Defendant Rushmore. At that time, Plaintiff
18 12. In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic began and the state of California was forced into
19 a shelter in place, which negatively impacted Plaintiff’s income. As a result, he applied for, and
20 received, a three month COVID-19 forbearance from Defendant RUSHMORE for the March,
21 April and May 2020 payments. Thereafter, Defendants refused to continue the forbearance and,
22 instead, began foreclosure proceedings against Plaintiff by recording a Notice of Default in April
23 2021.
24 13. Thereafter, in July 2021, Defendants caused a Notice of Trustee’s Sale to be recorded
26 14. Thereafter, Plaintiff continued to try to work with Plaintiff for a modification or
27 forbearance, as he had been doing for some time. However, there was a sale date scheduled for
28 Plaintiff’s property on October 19, 2021 and he was growing concerned about the run around that
3
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1 he was getting from Defendants. As a result, on or around October 1, 2021, Plaintiff sent
2 Defendants a Qualified Written Request and a request for reinstatement. Thereafter, he began to
3 secure the funds necessary to reinstate the loan, which he intended to do once he received the
5 support of his loan modification application that Defendants had been requesting over and over
6 again.
7 15. Finally, on October 12, 2021, Defendants confirmed receipt of a complete loan
8 modification application. However, they have yet to confirm postponement of the sale scheduled
9 for October 19, 2021. Furthermore, they have failed to respond to Plaintiff’s Qualified Written
10 Request or to provide Plaintiff with a reinstatement quote, despite his being ready, willing and
4 other than the portion of principal as would not then be due had no default occurred.
5 20. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 2924d(a), a beneficiary or its agent may demand as a
6 condition of reinstatement, to the extent allowed by subdivision (c) of Section 2924c, costs which
7 are actually incurred in enforcing the terms of the obligation and trustee's or attorney's fees as set
8 forth therein.
9 21. In the case at hand, Defendants violated Civil Codes § 2924c-d by frustrating Plaintiff’s
10 attempts to reinstate the loan and by not providing Plaintiff with a reinstatement quote, despite his
12 22. Despite these facts and with full knowledge of Plaintiff’s endeavors and attempt to
13 reinstate the loan, Defendant is still attempting to foreclose on the loan on October 19, 2021 in
15 23. Defendant’s conduct has resulted in various harms including, but not limited to, the
16 ongoing default which accumulated on the loan after its right to reinstate the loan was interfered
17 with, credit damage, the fees charged to the loan and attorney’s fees. Furthermore, Plaintiff is
18 entitled to injunctive relief to enjoin the sale of the property that is scheduled to take place after
3 27. On October 12, 2021, Plaintiff submitted a complete loan modification application to
4 Defendant. Despite this fact, a Trustee’s Sale is scheduled to occur on October 19, 2021.
5 28. Defendant violated Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.6. Pursuant to Civil Code § 2924.12, Plaintiff is
6 entitled to injunctive relief for the material violation and attorney’s fees.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
7 Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 3273, et seq.
8 (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
29. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations of this complaint and re-alleges them as though they
9
were fully set forth herein.
10
30. Defendants violated § 3273.10 of the California Civil Code, which provides that “[i]f a
11
mortgage servicer denies a forbearance request made during the effective time period, the
12
mortgage servicer shall provide written notice to the borrower that sets forth the specific reason or
13
reasons that forbearance was not provided.”
14
31. In the present case, Plaintiff was current on payments as of February 1, 2020.
15
32. Plaintiff made all of the payments under the loan. However, Plaintiff was provided with a
16
forbearance in March – May 2020 as a result of a COVID hardship. Plaintiff requested that the
17
forbearance be extended, but Defendant denied the request without providing notice to Plaintiff of
18
the reason for the denial.
19
33. Furthermore, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 3273.11, “[a] mortgage servicer shall comply
20
with applicable federal guidance regarding borrower options following a COVID-19 related
21
forbearance.” Furthermore, this section applies regardless of whether the loan is federally backed
22
or non-federally backed. (Cal. Civ. Code § 3273.11(b) and (c)).
23
34. In the present case, Defendants did not comply with federal guidelines regarding the
24
forbearance agreement requested by Plaintiff. In fact, Defendants did not review Plaintiff’s
25
forbearance request whatsoever.
26
35. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 3723.15, Plaintiff is entitled to injunctive relief to prevent the
27
unlawful sale of the Property while forbearance options are available.
28
6
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
1 Violation of 12 USC § 2605
2 36. Plaintiff incorporates all allegations of this complaint and re-allege them as though they
4 37. Defendant’s conduct constitutes violations of 12 USC § 2605(e) which provides that a
5 servicer must respond to any qualified written request by a borrower for information relating to the
6 servicing of the loan within a certain time frame and with certain information. Defendant entirely
7 failed to do so. On October 1, 2021, Plaintiff sent a Qualified Written Request to Defendant but
8 Defendant has failed to respond to the letter and, instead, is proceeding with foreclosure of the
9 property.
10 38. As a result of Defendant’s violations of this statute, Plaintiffs have suffered actual
11 damages including, but not limited to, loss of money and property, losses through overcharges,
12 incurred attorneys' fees and costs to save his home, a loss of reputation and goodwill, destruction
13 of credit, severe emotional distress, frustration, fear, anger, helplessness, nervousness, anxiety,
14 sleeplessness, sadness, and depression, according to proof at trial but within the jurisdiction of
15 this Court. Defendant consciously disregarded Plaintiffs’ rights, deliberately breaching their
16 respective duties, showing willful misconduct, malice, fraud, wantonness, oppression, and entire
23 40. Defendant’s conduct, as alleged above, constitutes unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent
24 business practices, as defined in the California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.
25 California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. incorporates and provides a basis for
26 enforcement of violations of other statutes and laws and those violations as a business practice.
27
28
7
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
1 41. Specifically, Defendant’s violations of California Civil Code §§ 2943 and 2924c, et seq.
2 constitute unfair business practices in violation of California Business and Professions Code §
3 17200 et seq.
4 42. As a result of Defendant’s wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered various injuries
5 according to proof at trial, including but not limited to the imminent loss of property.
6 43. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from engaging in the unfair business
8 44. Plaintiff further seeks restitution, disgorgement of sums wrongfully obtained, costs of suit,
9 reasonable attorney’s fees, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
10
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND PRAYER FOR DAMAGES
11
12 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff GUY HART demands a trial by jury. Plaintiff prays for
judgment and order against Defendants, as follows:
13
1. That judgment is entered in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendants, and each of them;
14
2. For damages, disgorgement, and injunctive relief;
15
3. For attorneys fees;
16
4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
17
24
25
26
27
28
8
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF