Serafin Mendez v. Selene Finance LP et al

Filing 59

ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 50 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II that the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50) and DISMISSES this action in its entirety. The Court will issue a judgment. (MD JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

O
JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:16-cv-09335-ODW-FFM

SERAFIN MENDEZ, an individual,

12

Plaintiff,

13

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

v.

14

SELENE FINANCE LP, a Delaware MOTION FOR SUMMARY

15

corporation;

16

California Corporation; and DOES 1-100,

17

INCLUSIVE,

18

THE

WOLF

FIRM,

a JUDGMENT [50]

Defendants.

19

I.

INTRODUCTION

20

Defendant Selene Finance LP (“Selene”), together with Defendant M&T Bank

21

move for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff Serafin Mendez’s (“Plaintiff”)

22

negligence claim. (Mot., ECF No. 50; Joinder Not. Motion, ECF No. 57.) Selene

23

argues that there are no genuine issues of material fact and Plaintiff failed to provide

24

evidence of either a breach of duty or any damages. (Id. at 1.) For the reasons

25

discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in

26

its entirety as to both Selene and M&T Bank. (ECF No. 50.)1

27
28

1

After considering the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter
appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15.

II.

1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2

On February 20, 2013, Plaintiff borrowed $451,668.00 (the “Loan”) and

3

executed a promissory note secured by a Deed of Trust encumbering real property

4

located in Lancaster, California (the “Property”). (Second Am. Compl. (“SAC”)

5

¶¶ 13–14, ECF No. 32; Def.’s Statement of Uncontroverted Facts (“SUF”) ¶ 1, ECF

6

No. 50-1.) The Deed of Trust was also recorded on February 20, 2013, and named

7

Pacificbanc Mortgage as the beneficiary. (SUF ¶¶ 1–2.) Sometime in 2014, Plaintiff

8

defaulted on her payments on the loan, and the foreclosure trustee recorded a Notice

9

of Default (“NOD”) on September 17, 2014. (SUF ¶¶ 3–4.) The NOD provided that

10

as of September 16, 2014, the default amount due was $32,347.67. (SUF ¶ 5.)

11

Plaintiff made no Loan payments in 2014 and then made a total of $23,327.49

12

in Loan payments in 2015. (SUF ¶¶ 6–7.) Plaintiff paid this amount over the course

13

of four payments, as follows: (1) $10,000.00 on February 3, 2015; $3,331.49 on

14

March 2, 2015; (3) $6,664.00 on April 24, 2015; and $3,332.00 on June 8, 2015.

15

(SUF ¶ 8.) The payments made in 2015 were insufficient to reinstate the Loan and

16

bring it current. (SUF ¶ 9.) On August 20, 2015, the trustee recorded the Notice of

17

Trustee’s Sale (“NOS”). (SUF ¶ 10.) On October 3, 2016, the servicing of the Loan

18

transferred to Selene. (SUF ¶ 11.) As of that date, the Loan was due for the August

19

2014 payment. (SUF ¶ 12.) A foreclosure sale of the Property took place on June 13,

20

2017. (SUF ¶ 23.)

21

Plaintiff filed his original complaint in the Los Angeles Superior Court on

22

November 17, 2016, alleging causes of action for negligence, violation of California

23

Civil Code § 2923.6, accounting, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition

24

Law (“UCL”) against Selene and the Wolf Firm.2 (ECF No. 1-1.) Selene removed

25

the case to this Court from the Los Angeles Superior Court on December 19, 2016.

26

(Not. Removal, ECF No. 1.) On December 27, 2016, Selene moved to dismiss the

27

Complaint. (ECF No. 7.) The Court granted the Defendant’s motion in its entirety on

28

2

The Wolf Firm filed a Declaration of Nonmonetary Status in this action. (ECF No. 1-4.)

2

1

February 7, 2017, but also granted Plaintiff leave to amend with regard to his UCL

2

and negligence claims. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff filed the SAC on May 2, 2017,

3

alleging a single negligence claim based on Selene’s failure to credit $23,327.49 to his

4

account.3 (See generally SAC.) In the SAC, Plaintiff added M&T Bank as a named

5

defendant. (Id. ¶ 4.)

6

Selene propounded written discovery on Plaintiff on August 10, 2017, including

7

Requests for Admissions. (SUF ¶ 13.) Plaintiff did not respond. (SUF ¶ 14.)

8

Plaintiff also failed to respond to Selene’s meet-and-confer letter sent on October 20,

9

2017. (Id.) On November 7, 2017, Selene moved for summary judgment. (ECF No.

10

50.) On December 13, 2017, Defendant M&T Bank joined in Selene’s Motion. (Not.

11

Joinder, ECF No. 57.) Plaintiffs did not file opposition.
III.

12

LEGAL STANDARD

13

Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any

14

material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.

15

P. 56(a). The initial burden rests with the movant to demonstrate the absence of a fact

16

or facts necessary for one or more essential element of the claim for which summary

17

judgment is sought. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

18

Once this initial burden is met, responsibility shifts to the non-moving party to

19

establish specific facts demonstrating the existence of a genuine issue of fact for trial.

20

Id. at 330. In so doing, the non-moving party must make more than “conclusory

21

allegations.” Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 498 U.S. 871, 888 (1990). They cannot

22

simply rely upon the pleadings. Id. at 902. If the non-moving party fails to make a

23

showing to establish the existence of all elements essential to the party’s case for

24
25
26
27
28

3

The Court dismissed Plaintiff’s alternative theory of liability, regarding Selene’s alleged failure to
properly consider him for a mortgage modification, without leave to amend. (ECF No. 16 at 4–5.)
Nonetheless, the SAC contained allegations related to this theory. (ECF No. 32.) Selene moved to
strike the portions of the SAC referencing this theory. (Mot. Strike, ECF No. 35.) The Court
granted that Motion. (Order Granting Mot. Strike, ECF No. 42.)

3

1

which he bears the burden of proof, then summary judgment should be granted to the

2

moving party. Id. at 884.

3

When deciding the outcome of a motion for summary judgment, “the inferences

4

to be drawn from the underlying facts . . . must be viewed in the light most favorable

5

to the party opposing the motion.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,

6

475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (citation omitted). The Court looks at the facts presented by

7

the non-moving party, as well as all undisputed facts, to make a determination of

8

whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. T.W. Elec. Serv.,

9

Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 631 (9th Cir. 1987). If the Court

10

determines that no rational trier of fact could find for the nonmoving party on the

11

claims at issue, then summary judgment is appropriate. Matsushita, 475 U.S. at 587.

12

The Court may not grant a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the

13

non-moving party fails to oppose it. See Cristobal v. Siegal, 26 F.3d 1488, 1494–95

14

& n.4 (9th Cir. 1994). “However, when the opposing party fails to challenge the facts

15

asserted by the moving party . . . the Court may consider the facts undisputed (or

16

‘deemed admitted’) for purposes of the motion[.]” Acevado v. City of Anaheim, No.

17

8:14-cv-01147-ODW(E), 2016 WL 79786, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2016).

18

Accordingly, the Court may grant summary judgment where the “undisputed facts, the

19

motion, and its supporting papers” demonstrate that the movants are entitled to it. Id.

20

IV.

DISCUSSION

21

Selene moved for summary judgment on the grounds that there is no genuine

22

issue of material fact as to both Selene’s standard of conduct and Plaintiff’s damages.

23

(ECF No. 50.) Because the Plaintiff failed to file any opposition, the Court accepts

24

Selene’s facts as admitted and turns to determine whether these facts properly call for

25

summary judgment. See Acevado, 2016 WL 79786, at *3. In order to successfully

26

allege a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must show “(1) the existence of a duty to

27

exercise due care; (2) breach of that duty; (3) causation; and (4) damages.” Dougherty

28

v. Bank of Am., N.A., 177 F. Supp. 3d 1230, 1249–50 (E.D. Cal. 2016).

4

1

A.

Breach of Duty

2

Plaintiff alleges that the Selene breached a duty to Plaintiff when, after

3

acquiring the servicing rights of Plaintiff’s Loan, Selene failed to credit $23,327.49 to

4

Plaintiff’s mortgage account and “did not properly review his loan account to credit

5

the payments made.” (SAC ¶¶ 22, 32.) However, it is the Plaintiff’s duty to show the

6

existence of a duty and breach. See Cisco Systems, Inc. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc.,

7

77 F. Supp. 3d 887, 895 (N.D. Cal. 2014).

8
9

On August 10, 2017, Selene served discovery requests on Plaintiff, which
included the following Requests for Admission:

10

 Admit YOU have no facts evidencing your contention in paragraph 21 of

11

the SAC that Selene failed to credit $23,327.49 in payments toward

12

YOUR loan.

13

 Admit YOU have no facts to support your contention in paragraph 21 of

14

the SAC that the last mortgage statements provided by Selene did not

15

reflect $23,327.49 in loan payments.

16

 Admit YOU have no facts to support your contention in paragraph 22 of

17

the SAC that Selene did not properly review YOUR loan account to

18

credit the payments made.
 Admit YOU have no facts to support your contention in paragraph 35 of

19

the SAC that Selene misappl[ied] YOUR loan payments.

20
21

(Decl. of Nicole Dunn ¶ 6, ECF No. 52.) Plaintiff never responded to these discovery

22

requests. (SUF ¶ 14.) Under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “[a]

23

matter is admitted unless, within 30 days of being served, the party to whom the

24

request is directed serves . . . a written answer or objection . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P.

25

36(a)(3).

26

By failing to respond to written discovery, Plaintiff is deemed to have admitted

27

that he has no evidence Selene failed to credit $23,327.49 in loan payments—or that

28

5

1

recent mortgage statements provided by Selene did not reflect that amount in

2

payments. (SUF ¶¶ 16–17); see also Acevado, 2016 WL 79786, at *3.

3

Moreover, Plaintiff claims that the alleged failure to credit Plaintiff’s account

4

occurred in 2014. (SAC ¶¶ 18–21.) Selene, however, did not take over serving the

5

Loan until October 3, 2016, after the alleged misapplication of payments. (SUF ¶ 11.)

6

Thus, even if the mishandling of funds did occur, which Plaintiff has not established,

7

it would not show a breach by Selene because, at that time, Selene had not yet begun

8

servicing Plaintiff’s loan.

9

Because (1) Selene has presented undisputed evidence that it was not servicing

10

the loan at the time the alleged credit should have been applied and (2) Plaintiff has

11

been deemed to have admitted that he has no evidence to support his contention that

12

Selene owed him a duty of care or breached such a duty, there is no genuine issue of

13

fact with regard to these issues.

14

B.

Damages

15

To establish a negligence claim, Plaintiff must also demonstrate the existence of

16

damages. See Cisco Systems, 77 F. Supp. 3d at 895. Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he

17

improper review and processing of Plaintiff’s loan modification application and

18

misappl[ication of] his payments deprived Plaintiff of the possibility of obtaining loss

19

mitigation assistance.” (SAC ¶ 35.) However, Plaintiff’s deemed admissions support

20

Defendants’ contentions that he has not sustained any damages as a result of

21

Defendants’ alleged actions. (See SUF ¶ 20.) Thus, Plaintiff has failed to establish

22

any issue of material fact as to whether Selene acted negligently, since the

23

uncontroverted facts do not demonstrate a breach of duty or the existence of damages.

24
25
26
27
28

6

1

C.

M&T Bank
As explained above, the Court finds there is no genuine issue of material fact

2
3

with respect to Plaintiff’s negligence claim.

4

negligence claim—namely, Plaintiff’s deemed admission that he has not suffered

5

any—apply equally to both Selene and M&T Bank, summary judgment is appropriate

6

as to both Defendants.4
V.

7

Because the failings of Plaintiff’s

CONCLUSION

8

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for

9

Summary Judgment (ECF No. 50) and DISMISSES this action in its entirety. The

10

Court will issue a judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

February 22, 2018

13
14

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

The Court previously noted that “if Selene cannot be held primarily liable for negligence[,] . . . then M&T bank cannot
be held vicariously liable for Selene’s negligence.” (Order Granting Mot. Strike, ECF No. 42.)

7