You're viewing Docket Item 19 from the case Yeh v. Bank of America, N.A. et al. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case4:12-cv-05940-PJH Document19 Filed01/02/13 Page1 of 15



Matthew D. Mellen (SBN: 233350)
Jessica Galletta (SBN: 281179)
Sarah Adelaars (SBN: 281748)
THE MELLEN LAW FIRM
411 Borel Avenue, Suite 230
San Mateo, California 94402
Telephone: (650) 638-0120
Facsimile: (650) 638-0125

Attorneys for Plaintiff,
JAY TA-CHIEH YEH


















UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff,




JAY TA-CHIEH YEH, an individual,





BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a business entity;
GREEN TREE SERVICING LLC, a business
entity, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,




Defendants.

v.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
















Case No.: 3:12-CV-05940-PJH

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF



1. Breach of the Covenant of Good

Faith and Fair Dealing


2. Promissory Estoppel



3. Wrongful Foreclosure – Violation of

California Civil Code §2924 et seq.


4. Breach of Contract



5. Reformation of Contract

6. Invasion of Privacy – False Light

7. Elder Financial Abuse

8. Negligent Misrepresentation









9. Unfair Business Practices –

Violation of Business and
Professions Code § 17200 et seq.



DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

1



Case4:12-cv-05940-PJH Document19 Filed01/02/13 Page2 of 15



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

1.

Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a result of the foreclosure process gone awry. In the case at

hand, Plaintiff was current on his loan payments and was ready, willing and able to continue

making payments, notwithstanding this, Defendants induced Plaintiff to skip payments and,

instead, pursue a loan modification. Plaintiff was concerned about the effect missed payments

would have on his credit, however, Defendants promised Plaintiff that, if he went late in pursuit

of a loan modification, Defendants would not count Plaintiff late to credit agencies and would not

initiate foreclosure proceedings against Plaintiff. However, unbeknownst to Plaintiff and contrary

to Defendants’ representations, Defendants counted Plaintiff late to credit agencies and caused

Plaintiff’s family home to be sold at a foreclosure sale. Plaintiff has suffered the destruction of

his credit and the loss of his family home. This lawsuit follows.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.

This is an action asserting violations of California State Law. Plaintiff is a homeowner

who brings this action as a result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct concerning a residential

mortgage loan transaction regarding the property located 1231 Swordfish Street Foster City, CA

94404 (the “Property”). Moreover venue is proper in this Court because a substantial part of the

events giving rise to the claims herein occurred in the County of San Mateo. Venue is therefore

proper in the Northern District of California.

PARTIES

3.

Plaintiff, Mr. Jay Ta-Chieh Yeh, is a semi-retired sixty-five-year-old man. At all relevant

times herein and presently, Plaintiff resides in the State of California, County of San Mateo.

4.

At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that

Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (hereinafter “BANK OF AMERICA”) is a diversified

financial marketing and/or services company engaged primarily in residential mortgage banking

and/or related businesses. BANK OF AMERICA was the beneficiary under the promissory note

and deed of trust during a substantial portion of the relevant events. Plaintiffs are informed and

believe and thereon allege that BANK OF AMERICA is a business entity operating within the

State of California.






FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

2



Case4:12-cv-05940-PJH Document19 Filed01/02/13 Page3 of 15



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5.

At all times relevant herein, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that

Defendant GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC (hereinafter “GREEN TREE”) is a diversified

financial marketing and/or services company engaged primarily in residential mortgage banking

and/or related businesses. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that GREEN

TREE is a business entity operating within the State of California.

6.

This court has personal jurisdiction over the parties as all Defendants engage in business

within the State of California. Defendants’ business involves providing mortgage loans and

related services to consumers in the State of California.

AGENCY ALLEGATIONS

7.

Plaintiff is informed, believes, and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, each

Defendant was acting as the agent, servant, employee, partner, co-conspirator, and/or joint

venturer of each remaining Defendants. Each Defendant was acting in concert with each

remaining Defendant in all matters alleged, and each Defendant has inherited any and all

violations or liability of their predecessors-in-interest. Additionally, each Defendant has passed

any and all liability to their successors-in-interest, and at all times were acting within the course

and scope of such agency, employment, partnership, and/or concert of action

STATEMENT OF FACTS

8.

In or around November 2007, Plaintiff refinanced his property and entered into a loan

agreement with Defendant BANK OF AMERICA. The promissory note and deed of trust, which

establishes Plaintiff and Defendants’ relationship, contains a provision for attorneys’ fees.

9.

In February 2011, when Plaintiff was current on his payments, Plaintiff’s loan was

transferred to Defendant GREEN TREE.

10.

On or around February 2011, when Plaintiff learned that GREEN TREE was the new

Trustee of his loan, he contacted GREEN TREE to inquire about receiving a loan modification.

GREEN TREE advised Plaintiff that, in order to get a loan modification he would need to be late

on his payments. Plaintiff was concerned about missing payments, and expressed such concern to

GREEN TREE’S representative. GREEN TREE’S representative told Plaintiff that, if he went

late in support of a loan modification, his missed payments would not be reported to the credit






FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

3



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case4:12-cv-05940-PJH Document19 Filed01/02/13 Page4 of 15



agencies and his property would not face foreclosure. Plaintiff, however, decided to continue

making payments and simultaneously apply for a loan modification. Therefore, in or around

February 2011, Plaintiff sent a complete loan modification application to GREEN TREE.

11.

In or around April 2011, however, Plaintiff received a notice that his loan modification

had been denied. Plaintiff immediately contacted Defendant and was informed by GREEN

TREE’S representative, Erica Holderness, that his application had been denied because he was

current on his payments.

12.

Plaintiff asked Holderness what his other options were and Holderness replied that, if

Plaintiff wanted a loan modification, the only option available to him was to miss payments.

After Plaintiff expressed his concern to Holderness about missing payments, Holderness

promised Plaintiff that, if he missed payments in pursuit of a loan modification, he would not be

counted late to credit agencies and would not face foreclosure. Therefore, in reliance on

Holderness’ representations that missing payments was his only option and Holderness’ promises

about the effect of missed payments, Plaintiff ceased making payments, even though he was, at

all times, ready, willing and able to continue making payments.

13. What followed was a lengthy process where Plaintiff was required to submit and resubmit

countless documents at the request of Defendants. For example, Defendants required that

Plaintiff increase his rental payments to qualify for a loan modification, which Plaintiff did.

However, after doing so, Defendants unreasonably continued to make Plaintiff submit and re-

submit the proofs of income. Plaintiff continued to submit and re-submit countless documents

and was in the process of doing so, when Defendants sold Plaintiff’s home on May 25, 2012 at an

unlawful Trustee’s Sale. The Property was reacquired by the beneficiary, BANK OF AMERICA,

at the Trustee’s Sale.

14.

As a result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff’s credit has been completely destroyed,

Plaintiff’s loan is inflated with late fees and charges, and Plaintiff lost his family home and now

faces possible eviction by Defendants. This lawsuit follows.










FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

4



Case4:12-cv-05940-PJH Document19 Filed01/02/13 Page5 of 15



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

(Against ALL Defendants)

15.

Plaintiff incorporates all allegations of this complaint and re-alleges them as though they

were fully set forth herein.

16.

Defendants’ actions as set forth above constitute a breach of the covenant of good faith

and fair dealing implied in every contract under California Law. This covenant creates an

obligation in Defendants not to hinder or prevent Plaintiff’s ability to perform under the contract.

Likewise, the covenant prohibits Defendants from interfering with Plaintiff’s enjoyment of the

contract. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants both interfered with his ability to perform on the loan

and interfered with his ability to enjoy the benefits of the loan agreement.

17.

In 2007, Plaintiff refinanced his loan with BANK OF AMERICA. To secure the

refinance, Plaintiff executed a Promissory Note and Deed of Trust in favor of BANK OF

AMERICA. Defendant GREEN TREE acquired these duties and obligations, including the

implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, when it became the Trustee of Plaintiff’s loan.

18.

Until April 2011, Plaintiff substantially performed all of his obligations under the loan,

making every loan payment in full and on time. In fact, Plaintiff only went late on his loan

payments after Defendants, through its representative Holderness, instructed him to do so in order

to apply for a loan modification and promised that it would not report Plaintiff late or foreclose on

his property while Plaintiff was in loan modification review. In fact, according to California Civil

Code §1511, when Defendants induced Plaintiff not to make payments under the Deed of Trust,

Plaintiff’s performance under the Deed was thereafter excused. As such, all conditions necessary

for Defendant to fulfill its obligations under the contract had occurred.

19.

No conditions existed that would interfere with Defendants performing under the contract,

and all conditions necessary for Defendants to fulfill its obligations under the contract had

occurred.

20.

Pursuant to Section 1 of the Deed of Trust securing Plaintiff’s loan, Plaintiff was required

to make full and timely payments to his Lender in compliance with his financing agreement.






FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

5



Case4:12-cv-05940-PJH Document19 Filed01/02/13 Page6 of 15



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s ability to perform under this Section of the Deed of Trust

by inducing Plaintiff not to make payments, through a series of false promises. Specifically,

Plaintiff induced Plaintiff not to perform under the Deed of Trust by stating that Plaintiff must

cease making payments and that, if he did so, he would not be counted late or face foreclosure.

21.

Further, Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s ability to enjoy the benefits of the loan

agreement. The benefit of the loan agreement to Plaintiff was that he would be allowed to

purchase his property and make incremental monthly payments in repayment of that loan.

However, by inducing Plaintiff not to pay, Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s right to receive

these benefits because Plaintiff had now lost the ability to make incremental monthly payments

and was, thus, forced to make huge lump payments instead.

22.

Defendants’ interference with Plaintiffs’ contractual rights resulted in various harms

including, but not limited to, the destruction of Plaintiffs’ credit and the accumulation of

excessive arrears on the Loan, expenditure of attorney’s fees and the loss of Plaintiffs’ Property.

This harm was intentional and foreseeable from Defendants’ interference.


SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Promissory Estoppel

(Against ALL Defendants)

23.

Plaintiff incorporates all allegations of this complaint and re-alleges them as though they

were fully set forth herein.

24.

Defendants are liable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel if it induces Plaintiff to

reasonably rely on a promise to Plaintiff’s detriment.

25.

In or around April 2011, Defendants, through their representative Holderness,

unequivocally and clearly promised Plaintiff that, if he missed payments in pursuit of a loan

modification, he would not be counted late to credit agencies and his house would not face

foreclosure during the pendency of the loan modification review.

26.

Plaintiff reasonably and detrimentally relied on Defendants’ representations and stopped

paying his monthly payments in order to apply for a loan modification. Plaintiff’s reliance was






FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

6



Case4:12-cv-05940-PJH Document19 Filed01/02/13 Page7 of 15



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reasonable, as Defendants were the holders of Plaintiff’s loan, and ostensibly possessed the

requisite authority to forego foreclosure activity while reviewing the modification application.

27.

Plaintiff relied upon Defendants’ representation to his detriment, as his credit has been

destroyed, and Plaintiff lost his home at an unlawfully conducted Trustee’s Sale.

28.

Given Defendants’ promise not to foreclose upon Plaintiff’s home while Plaintiff’s loan

modification was taking place and not to count Plaintiff late, and Plaintiff’s reasonable and

detrimental reliance upon these promises, justice requires that Defendant honor its promise not to

foreclose upon Plaintiff’s home while Plaintiff’s modification application was being processed,

unwind the Trustee’s Sale, restore his title to the Property, and to repair his credit.

29.

Additionally, as a result of Defendants’ conduct, omissions, and representations, Plaintiff

has suffered and continues to suffer harm including payment of excessive fees, a negative credit

rating, and severe emotional distress.

30.

Plaintiff further seeks restitution, disgorgement of sums wrongfully obtained, costs of suit,

reasonable attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and

proper.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION



Wrongful Foreclosure – Violation of California Civil Code § 2924 et seq.

(Against ALL Defendants)

31.

Plaintiff incorporates all allegations of this complaint and re-alleges them as though they

were fully set forth herein.

32.

Defendants’ conduct, as alleged above, constitutes acts or practices in violation of

California Civil Code § 2924 et seq. In fact, the entire course of Defendants’ conduct alleged

above is an attempt to circumvent § 2924 et seq.

33.

For example, Civil Code § 2924c requires the mortgagor be in breach of the obligation

securing the mortgage before the mortgagee can invoke its power of sale. As Plaintiff was

instructed to go late on his payments, he was not in breach of the loan agreement. Therefore,

Defendants’ institution of foreclosure proceedings pursuant to that statute was improper and a

violation of the statute.






FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

7



Case4:12-cv-05940-PJH Document19 Filed01/02/13 Page8 of 15



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

34.

In addition, Civil Code § 2924c requires that the beneficiary know the nature of the

breach, but herein the beneficiary did in fact not know the nature of the breach. On July 16, 2011,

Defendants, as beneficiary under the Deed of Trust, caused to be recorded a Notice of Default,

which contained an inaccurate amount of arrears inflated with late fees and attorneys’ fees, which

Defendants caused to be amassed by its own bad conduct in advising Plaintiff to go late on his

mortgage.

35.

Plaintiff has suffered substantial and irreparable injury as a result of Defendants’ conduct.

These violations of California Civil Code §§ 2924 et seq. entitle Plaintiff to an award of damages,

in an amount to be established at trial, and attorney’s fees.

36.

Defendants are guilty of malice, fraud and/or oppression, as defined in California Civil

Code § 3294. Defendants’ actions were malicious and willful, in conscious disregard of the rights

and safety of Plaintiff, and calculated to injure Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to

recover punitive damages from Defendants pursuant to California Civil Code § 3294, in an

amount according to proof.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Contract

(Against ALL Defendants)

37.

Plaintiff incorporates all allegations of this complaint and re-alleges them as though they

were fully set forth herein.

38.

In 2007, Plaintiff refinanced his loan with BANK OF AMERICA. To secure the

refinance, Plaintiff executed a Promissory Note and Deed of Trust in favor of BANK OF

AMERICA. Defendant GREEN TREE acquired these duties and obligations and became a party

to the Deed of Trust when it became the Trustee of Plaintiff’s loan. Plaintiff alleges that

Defendants breached the contract by initiating foreclosure proceedings against Plaintiff.

39.

Pursuant to Section 22 of the Deed of Trust, in the event of a borrower default, the lender

may accelerate all sums owned and invoke a power of sale (“Lender shall give notice to Borrower

prior to acceleration following Borrower’s breach of any covenant or agreement in this Security

Instrument.”) However, in this case, as Plaintiff was repeatedly advised not to make his






FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

8



Case4:12-cv-05940-PJH Document19 Filed01/02/13 Page9 of 15



payments and to instead pursue a loan modification, his performance under the contract was

waived/excused pursuant to Civil Code § 1511 and he was not in breach of the Deed of Trust.

Despite this fact, however, Defendants proceeded forward with the foreclosure of Plaintiff’s

home, in clear breach of the Deed of Trust.

40.

By reason of Defendants’ breach of contract as alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered actual

damages including, but not limited to, the sale of his Property, costs expended in order to save his

Property, inflated late fees and charges, and the destruction of his credit. Plaintiff is in danger of

being evicted from his home and has been forced to secure the services of an attorney to

prosecute this lawsuit.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Reformation of Contract
(Against ALL Defendants)

41.

Plaintiff incorporates all allegations of this complaint and re-alleges them as though they

were fully set forth herein.

42.

Reformation may be had when, through fraud or a mutual mistake of the parties, or a

mistake of one party, which the other at the time knew or suspected, a written contract does not

truly express the intention of the parties

43.

Pursuant to Section 7(B) of the Adjustable Rate Note, a borrower will be in default if they

do not pay the full amount of each monthly payment on the date it is due. This provision is

unconscionable and needs to be reformed to prevent a lender from holding a borrower in default

when the borrower has been instructed not to make payments, such as during a loan modification

review. As it exists now, the provision allows Defendants to perpetrate a fraud by instructing a

borrower to withhold payments as a regular part of the loan modification process and then

holding the borrower in default for missing the very payments it instructed him to withhold.

44.

In the case at hand, Defendants specifically utilized these provisions in order to

wrongfully engineer a default against Plaintiff and to accumulate an insurmountable amount of

arrears. Defendants instructed Plaintiff to withhold payments, and then listed in arrears those

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

9



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case4:12-cv-05940-PJH Document19 Filed01/02/13 Page10 of 15



payments, which they instructed Plaintiff not to make and added additional late fees and

attorneys’ fees.

45.

As such, the Adjustable Rate Note should be reformed. Plaintiff requests that this

provision of the Adjustable Rate Note be reformed to state: “I will be in default if I do not pay on

the day it is due, unless given other instructions by the lender.” Alternatively, Plaintiff requests

the Court to reform this provision or other provisions of the contract, as it sees fit.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Invasion of Privacy - False Light

(Against ALL Defendants)

46.

Plaintiff incorporates all allegations of this complaint and re-alleges them as though they

were fully set forth herein.

47.

Defendants’ conduct, as alleged above, constitutes an invasion of privacy by placing

Plaintiff in false light.

48.

The essential elements for a claim of false lights are: (1) public disclosure of a fact about

Plaintiff, (2) the fact was false and portrayed the Plaintiff in a false light, (3) the false light in

which Plaintiff was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, (4) the defendant

had knowledge of its falsity, acted in reckless disregard of the falsity of the fact, or negligently

failed to learn whether the fact publicized was false, (5) and the plaintiff suffered special

damages.

49.

In the case at hand, Plaintiff was not in default when Defendants caused false information

to be recorded in different credit agencies which portrayed Defendants in a false light. However,

Plaintiff was not in breach, and had only missed payments under the express promise by Plaintiff

that he needed to do so and if he did so, he would not be reported late to the credit bureaus. But

for Defendants representations, Plaintiff would have continued to make his mortgage payments,

which he was ready, willing and able to do. Defendants knew that Plaintiff was not in default, or

acted in reckless disregard of this fact, when it reported Plaintiff late to the credit bureaus.

Plaintiff was highly offended by this fact, as would be any reasonable person in Plaintiff’s

position.






FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

10



Case4:12-cv-05940-PJH Document19 Filed01/02/13 Page11 of 15



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

50.

As a result of Defendants’ conduct in publishing the improper foreclosure, Plaintiff has

suffered damages for loss of money and property. Such losses include, but are not limited to,

overcharges of fees, incurred attorneys' fees, costs of saving the Property and loss of his Property,

and destruction of credit, according to proof at trial and within the Court’s jurisdiction.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Elder Financial Abuse Welfare and Institutions Code §15610 et seq.

(Against ALL Defendants)

51.

Plaintiff incorporates all allegations of this complaint and re-alleges them as though they

were fully set forth herein.

52.

As indicated in Plaintiff’s causes of action for Breach of the Covenant of Good Faith and

Fair Dealing, Promissory Estoppel, and Wrongful Foreclosure, the actions of Defendants, and

each of them, constitute elder financial abuse as defined in the Welfare and Institutions Code

§15610.30(a)(1).

53.

At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff was an “elder” within the meaning of Welfare and

Institutions Code § 15610.27.

54.

Defendants took, secreted, appropriated and/or retained real property of Plaintiff for a

wrongful use and with the intent to defraud. Defendants’ acts were and are being done in bad

faith, as Defendants have taken Plaintiff’s property by committing fraudulent acts.

55.

Using the trust and relationship with Plaintiff, Defendants induced Plaintiff to cease

making his mortgage payments and apply for a loan modification, unreasonably strung out the

loan modification application process and then foreclosed on Plaintiff’s home in spite of its

assurances to Plaintiff that he would not face foreclosure during the pendency of his loan

modification application. In addition, Defendants continually harassed Plaintiff for more

information and documentation to support his loan modification application. Yet Plaintiff’s

compliance with Defendants continuous requests was never enough. Defendants allegedly

needed more information and documentation, more than that asked of the normal loan

modification applicant.

56.

As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff was injured and is entitled to actual damages

including, but not limited to, loss of money and property including but not limited to losses






FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

11



Case4:12-cv-05940-PJH Document19 Filed01/02/13 Page12 of 15



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

through overcharges and unlawfully unfavorable loan terms, incurred attorney’s fees and costs to

save his Property, a loss of reputation and goodwill, destruction of credit, severe emotional

distress, loss of appetite, frustration, fear, anger, helplessness, nervousness, anxiety, sleeplessness,

sadness, and depression, according to proof at trial but within the jurisdiction of this Court.

57.

Plaintiff seeks restitution, disgorgement of sums wrongfully obtained, costs of suit,

reasonable attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and

proper.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Negligent Misrepresentation

(Against ALL Defendants)

58.

Plaintiff incorporates all allegations of this complaint and re-alleges them as though they

were fully set forth herein.

59.

Defendants’ conduct, as alleged above, constitutes assertions, as facts, of that which is not

true, by one who has no reasonable grounds for believing it to be true.

60.

The elements of negligent misrepresentation under Civil Code § 1710(2) are: (1) the

defendant makes a representation as to past or existing material fact; (2) the defendant made the

misrepresentation without any reasonable grounds for believing it to be true; (3) the

representation was made with the intent to induce the plaintiff to rely upon it; (4) the plaintiff was

unaware of the falsity of the representation and acted in justifiable reliance on the representation;

and (5) resulting damages.

61.

First, Defendants represented to Plaintiff on numerous occasions that there would be no

negative consequences for withholding mortgage payments as instructed by Defendants. Had

Plaintiff not been reassured that he would not be counted late after he expressed concern, Plaintiff

would not have withheld his regular mortgage payments. Second, Defendants had no reasonable

grounds for believing its misrepresentations to be true since it was solely within its knowledge

that they were counting Plaintiff late for each month Plaintiff withheld his mortgage payment

while simultaneously reassuring Plaintiff that they would not do so. Third, the misrepresentations

were designed to induce Plaintiff to withhold his payments since Plaintiff would not have done so

otherwise since he had good credit and expressed his concerns about falling behind. Fourth,






FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

12



Case4:12-cv-05940-PJH Document19 Filed01/02/13 Page13 of 15



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff was unaware of the falsity of the representation and only discovered its falsity after

Defendants instituted foreclosure proceedings against Plaintiff’s Property, contrary to

Defendants’ representations. And fifth, as a result of Defendants’ misrepresentations, Plaintiff

has suffered and continues to suffer damage to his credit, excessive late fees and charges, and the

imminent sale of his Property.

62.

Plaintiff further seeks restitution, disgorgement of sums wrongfully obtained, costs of suit,

reasonable attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and

proper.



NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Unfair Competition – Violation of Business and Professions Code §§17200 et seq.

(Against ALL Defendants)

63.

Plaintiff incorporates all allegations of this complaint and re-alleges them as though they

were fully set forth herein.

64.

Defendants’ conduct, as alleged above, constitutes unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent

business practices, as defined in the California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. borrows violations from other statutes

and laws and makes them unlawful to engage in as a business practice. Plaintiff’s California

Business and Professions Code § 17200 allegations are tethered to the following laws:

65.

Defendants’ breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing constitutes unfair

competition under California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

66.

Defendants’ breach of contract constitutes unfair competition under California Business

and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

67.

Defendants’ violations of California Civil Code §§ 2924 et seq. constitute unfair

competition under California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

68.

Defendants’ inducement of Plaintiff’s detrimental reliance under the doctrine of

promissory estoppel constitutes unfair competition under California Business and Professions

Code § 17200 et seq.






FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

13



Case4:12-cv-05940-PJH Document19 Filed01/02/13 Page14 of 15



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26


27

28

69.

Defendants’ Invasion of Privacy constitutes unfair competition under California Business

and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

70.

Defendants’ Elder Financial Abuse constitutes unfair competition under California

Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

71.

Defendants’ Intentional Misrepresentation by Promissory Fraud constitutes unfair

competition under California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

72.

As a result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered various damages and

injuries, including, but not limited to, loss of money and property including but not limited to

incurred attorneys' fees and costs to save his home, the loss of his home due to the Trustee’s Sale,

a loss of reputation and goodwill, destruction of credit, severe emotional distress, loss of appetite,

frustration, fear, anger, helplessness, nervousness, anxiety, sleeplessness, sadness, and depression.

73.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from engaging in the unfair business

practices described herein.

74.

Plaintiff further seeks restitution, disgorgement of sums wrongfully obtained, costs of suit,

reasonable attorneys' fees, and such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and

proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AND PRAYER FOR DAMAGES





WHEREFORE, Plaintiff JAY TA-CHIEH YEH demands a trial by jury. Plaintiff prays

for judgment and order against Defendants, as follows:


1. That judgment is entered in Plaintiff’s favor and against Defendants;

















2. For a preliminary and permanent injunction preventing Defendants, or anyone acting in

concert with them from seeking to evict Plaintiff until the claims herein are resolved:

3. For an order setting aside the trustee’s sale;

4. For damages, disgorgement, and injunctive relief;

5. For compensatory and statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs according to proof at

trial;

6. For exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants’ wrongful conduct

and deter future misconduct;

7. For an order stating that Defendants engaged in unfair business practices;

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

14







Case4:12-cv-05940-PJH Document19 Filed01/02/13 Page15 of 15

8. For an order that Defendants be required to repair Plaintiffs’ credit;

9. For compensatory and statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs according to proof at

trial;


10. For exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants’ wrongful conduct

and deter future misconduct;


11. For a judgment determining that Defendant BANK OF AMERICA’S title claims to

Plaintiffs’ Property are without any right whatever and such defendants have no right,
title, estate, lien, or interest whatever in the above-described property or any part thereof;


12. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.







DATED: January 2, 2013






















































Respectfully submitted,

THE MELLEN LAW FIRM

_/s/ Matthew Mellen_________
Matthew Mellen
Attorneys for Plaintiff
JAY TA-CHIEH YEH

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

15