Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 18

1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, SOUTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT
9
LIMITED JURISDICTION
10
11
HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ) Case No.:
12 ASSOCIATION, as Trustee ) (Unlawful Detainer)
)
13 Plaintiff, ) NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND
v. ) DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER
14 COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF
) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
15 ) SUPPORT THEREOF; AND
) DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY F.
16 ) UMBREIT
17 ; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, )
) Filed concurrently with Request for Judicial
Notice; [Proposed] Order; and Proof of
18 Defendants. ) Service
)
19 )
) Hearing Date: December 1, 2009
20
) Time: 9:01 A.M.
21 ) Dept.: LM
)
22 ) UD Complaint Filed: November 6, 2009
)
23 ) Related Case: CIV12359
24
25 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

26 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 1, 2009 at 9:01 A.M. or as soon thereafter as

27 the matter may be heard in Department LM of the above-referenced Court, located at 400 County

28

1
NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1 Center, Redwood City, California 94063, Defendants
2 will, and hereby do, demur to Plaintiff HSBC BANK USA (“HSBC”) Unlawful Detainer
3 Complaint on the following grounds:
4 1. Plaintiff HSBC does not have the legal capacity to sue pursuant to Code of Civil
5 Procedure § 430.10(b).
6 2. Since Plaintiff lacks standing to commence an unlawful detainer action against
7 Defendants as it fails the “real party in interest” requirement, “the pleading does not state facts
8 sufficient to constitute a cause of action” on behalf of the proper specific plaintiff pursuant to
9 Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(e).
10 This Demurrer is made pursuant to the provisions of Code Civil Procedure §§ 430.10(b)
11 and 430.10(e), and is based upon this Notice; the attached memorandum of points and authorities;
12 declaration of _______________________-in support thereof; the concurrently-filed request for
13 judicial notice of Defendants’ Complaint court file; the records, files, and pleadings in this action;
14 and such further evidence and argument the Court may consider at hearing.
15
16 Respectfully submitted,
17
18 DATED: November 18, 2009
19
20
21
22
By ______________________________________
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1 TABLE OF CONTENT
2
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES………………………………………………………………..…... ii
3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES………………………………………... 1
4
STATEMENT OF FACTS ………………………………................................................. 1
5
6 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT…………………………………………………………... 3

7 ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………………………... 4
8 I. DEFENDANTS MAY BASE THIS DEMURRER ON THEIR
9 JUDICIALLY-NOTICEABLE WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE
COMPLAINT.…………………….......................................................................... 4
10
II. THIS GENERAL DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT MUST BE
11 SUSTAINED BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF LACKS THE CAPACITY TO SUE
PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 430.10(b)…......................... 4
12
13 III. THIS GENERAL DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT MUST BE
SUSTAINED BECAUSE THE UD COMPLAINT FAILS TO
14 STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE § 430.10(e)………………………………………………………... 7
15
16 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………….. 7

17 DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY F. UMBREIT IN SUPPORT OF


DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT........................... 9
18
19
20 [PROPOSED] ORDER– Filed Separately
21 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER – Filed Separately
22
PROOF OF SERVICE –Filed Separately
23
24
25
26
27
28

i
TABLE OF CONTENT
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
CALIFORNIA STATUTES:
3
4 Civil Code § 2924
Civil Code § 2932.5
5 Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(b)
Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10(e)
6 Code of Civil Procedure § 430.30
7 Code of Civil Procedure § 430.70
Evidence Code § 452
8 Evidence Code § 453
9
10 CASES:

11 Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311


Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599
12 County of Fresno v. Shelton (App. 5 Dist. 1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 996
Parker v. Bowron, (1953) 40 Cal.2d 344
13
Washington Mutual Bank v. Blechman (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 662
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2
3 STATEMENT OF FACTS
4 Plaintiff’s Complaint provides that Defendants, as trustors, conveyed the subject property
5 at _______________________________________(the “Property” or “Home”) to a Trustee by a
6 Deed of Trust executed and recorded in the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office on September
7 19, 2006 (“Deed of Trust”) to secure payment of said trustors’ Promissory Note. See, Plaintiff’s
8 Complaint, ¶4(A). Thereafter, as alleged by Plaintiff, the Trustee of said Deed of Trust sold and
9 conveyed title to the Property to Plaintiff, HSBC, “pursuant to the foreclosure and sale of the
10 [Property], under the power of sale contained in the Deed of Trust and in compliance with Civil
11 Code § 2924”. Plaintiff’s Complaint ¶4(B).
12 On October 21, 2009, Plaintiff caused to be served a written 3/90-Day Notice stating that
13 Plaintiff had purchased the Property and demanded that all persons vacate the premises.
14 On November 6, 2009, Defendants filed an action for wrongful foreclosure in San Mateo
15 Superior Court, Southern Judicial District, Unlimited Jurisdiction, Case No.
16 CIV______________, naming HSBC as one of the defendants (“Defendants’ Wrongful
17 Foreclosure Complaint” or “Defendants’ Complaint” or “Defendants’ Verified Complaint”);
18 attached to the concurrently-filed Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit A). Concurrently with
19 this Demurrer, and in support thereof, Defendants request this Court to take judicial notice of
20 Defendants’ Wrongful Foreclosure Complaint pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452 and 453 and
21 Code of Civil Procedure §§ 430.30 and 430.70.
22 Defendants’ Verified Complaint includes claims for setting aside the Trustee Sale,
23 canceling the Trustee’s Deed, Quiet title, and declaratory and injunctive relief, while alleging,
24 inter alia, the following:
25 1) On or about September 14, 2006 Defendants entered into a written agreement with
26 American Mortgage Express, Corp. for the financing of Defendants’ loan for the
27 purchase of their Home. Defendants for valuable consideration, as borrowers, made,
28

1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1 executed, and delivered to American Mortgage Express, Corp. a written promissory
2 note in the total amount of $960,000.00.
3 2) To secure payment of the principle sum and interest as provided in the Note and as part
4 of the same transaction, Defendants, as trustors, executed and delivered to Mortgage
5 Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”) as beneficiary, a Deed of Trust dated
6 September 14, 2006 (the “Deed of Trust”), by the terms of which Plaintiffs, as trustors,
7 conveyed to Alliance Title of San Mateo, as trustee, the Property. The Deed of Trust
8 was recorded on September 19, 2006.
9 3) On or about February 23, 2009, MERS assigned all beneficial interests under the Deed
10 of Trust to INDYMAC BANK FSB (“INDYMAC”) (hereinafter referred to as the
11 “Assignment of Deed of Trust”). Although executed in February, 2009, the
12 Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded only later, on August 26, 2009.
13 4) On or about March 10, 2009, Defendants INDYMAC and/or REGIONAL SERVICE
14 CORPORATION and/or LPS DEFAULT and/or LPS AGENCY caused to be recorded
15 a Notice of Default and Election to Sell on Defendants’ Property. Although
16 REGIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION claimed to be “either the duly appointed
17 Trustee, the substitute Trustee or acting as agent for Beneficiary under [the Deed of
18 Trust]”, no such indication is to be found in the Official Records in the Office of the
19 Recorder of San Mateo County, California.
20 5) On or about June 18, 2009, Defendants received a Notice of Trustee Sale from
21 REGIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION stating that a Trustee Sale of the Property is
22 set to take place on July 8, 2009. The Trustee Sale was later postponed to September
23 14, 2009 and a notice thereon was sent to Defendants.
24 6) On September 14, 2009, REGIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION and/or LPS
25 DEFAULT and/or LPS AGENCY conducted a Trustee Sale of the Property. The
26 Property was purportedly sold to HSBC as Trustee for BCAP LLC 2006-AA2 (while
27 INDYMAC serves as a Servicer of BCAP LLC 2006-AA2), allegedly or presumably,
28

2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1 under the power of sale contained in the aforementioned Deed of Trust. The Trustee’s
2 Deed Upon Sale of the Property was recorded on October 7, 2009.
3 7) In their Wrongful Foreclosure Action, Defendants allege, inter alia, violations of
4 California law and Federal executive orders in improperly holding the sale of
5 Defendants’ Home and in wrongfully executing, delivering, and recording Trustee’s
6 Deed on the Property, as set forth below.
7 On November 6, 2009, concurrently with Plaintiffs’ filing of their Complaint or
8 immediately thereafter, HSBC, the purported purchaser of the Property in a Trustee Sale, filed this
9 Unlawful Detainer action (“UD Complaint”) against Defendants.
10 On or about November 15, 2009, Defendants were served with Plaintiff’s UD Complaint.
11
12 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
13 In their UD Complaint, Plaintiff explicitly held itself as an entity qualified to commence
14 this Unlawful Detainer action against Defendants. Plaintiff’s Complaint ¶1. However, it appears
15 on the face of the UD Complaint and Defendants’ Verified Complaint, which is judicially-
16 noticeable by this Court, that:
17 Plaintiff HSBC is not a real party in interest; Title has not been perfected in Plaintiff since
18 the title to the Property was not conveyed to Plaintiff under the power of sale contained in the
19 Deed of Trust and/or was not conveyed in compliance with Civil Code § 2924; Plaintiff HSBC
20 lacks capacity and standing to sue; and, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to
21 constitute cause of action on behalf of the proper specific plaintiff, pursuant to Code of Civil
22 Procedure1 §§ 430.10(b) and 430.10(e).
23 Therefore, Defendants’ Demurrer must be sustained without leave to amend and Plaintiff’s
24 Complaint dismissed.
25
26
27 1
Hereinafter referred to as “CCP”.
28

3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1 ARGUMENT
I
2
DEFENDANTS MAY BASE THIS DEMURRER ON THEIR JUDICIALLY-
3 NOTICEABLE WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE COMPLAINT

4 CCP § 430.10 provides in pertinent part:

5 “The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed


may object, by demurrer … as provided in Section 430.30, to the pleading
6 on any one or more of the following grounds: … (b) The person who
filed the pleading does not have the legal capacity to sue” (emphasis
7
added).
8 In turn, CCP § 430.30(a) states:
9
When any ground for objection to a complaint, cross-complaint, or answer
10 appears on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the court is
required to or may take judicial notice, the objection on that ground may
11 be taken by a demurrer to the pleading (emphasis added).
12 A demurrer may challenge the legal sufficiency of an opponent's pleading based on
13 defects that appear on the face of the pleading under attack and/or from matters outside the
14 pleading that are judicially noticeable. See, Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; County
15 of Fresno v. Shelton (App. 5 Dist. 1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 996, 1008-1009, as modified.
16 Concurrently with their Demurrer, Defendants are filing a Request for Judicial Notice of
17 said Wrongful Foreclosure Complaint pursuant to Evidence Code §§ 452 and 453. Under CCP §
18 430.30, Defendants may base their Demurrer on the judicially-noticed Wrongful Foreclosure
19 Complaint court file.
20
21 II
THIS GENERAL DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT MUST BE SUSTAINED
22 BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF LACKS THE CAPACITY TO SUE
PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 430.10(b)
23
Plaintiff HSBC filed this UD Complaint on or about November 6, 2009, concurrently with
24
or immediately after Defendants filed their Wrongful Foreclosure Complaint naming HSBC as
25
defendant. Defendants’ Verified Complaint alleges the following:
26
27
28

4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1 INDYMAC (allegedly, HSBC’s predecessor in interest) had no legal capacity to
2 commence, execute, or cause to be executed a Trustee Sale. As a result of the Office of Thrift
3 Supervision’s March 19, 2009 Order, which appointed the FDIC as the receiver for INDYMAC,
4 INDYMAC became an “inactive institution” and no longer in existence on March 19, 2009.
5 INDYMAC, a defunct corporation, had no authority and legal capacity to initiate a trustee sale as
6 of March 19, 2009. The only one who had such authority was the receiver, FDIC;
7 Since INDYMAC was unauthorized to conduct a trustee sale, its purported agents,
8 REGIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION and/or LPS DEFAULT and/or LPS AGENCY were
9 unauthorized to do so as well;
10 Also, INDYMAC issued an unauthorized Notice of Default and Election to Sell as
11 INDYMAC did so before the Assignment of Deed was duly acknowledged and recorded, as
12 required by Civil Code § 2932.5;
13 REGIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION was never dully appointed as a substitute
14 Trustee and nonetheless acted as such;
15 INDYMAC, REGIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION, LPS DEFAULT and LPS
16 AGENCY thus failed to comply with or misrepresented their compliance with the requirements
17 under Civil Code § 2924 as they were not authorized to conduct a Trustee Sale and unlawfully
18 issued a Notice of Default and Election to Sell, a prerequisite thereto;
19 Since the underlying sale was unlawful, the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale delivered to HSBC
20 is invalid and void. Further, HSBC is still subject to any deficiencies in the underlying Trustee
21 Sale because HSBC is not a bona fide purchaser, as it was already the beneficial owner of the
22 underlying obligation, whatever that might be and as such, did not exchange any consideration for
23 the so called Trustee’s Deed; HSBC did not acquire any interest in the property through a sale; did
24 not pay fair consideration or for that matter did not pay any consideration; was not a bona fide
25 purchaser; had, at all times, notice both actual and constructive of defects in the underlying Note,
26 Deed of Trust and the defects on the on the face of the documents recorded in the public records;
27
28

5
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1 More specifically, HSBC had constructive notice of the defects alleged by Defendants
2 because the chain of title of the Property in the Official Records in the office of the Recorder of
3 San Mateo County, California clearly shows that a Notice of Default was recorded before Power
4 of Sale ever vested in INDYMAC, i.e. before the Assignment of Deed of Trust was “duly
5 acknowledged and recorded” (Civil Code §2932.5). Further, HSBC as Trustee for BCAP LLC
6 Trust 2006-AA2 cannot be said to qualify as a bona fide purchaser without notice since
7 INDYMAC serves as a Servicer of BCAP LLC Trust 2006-AA2, which may indicate that the
8 transfer of the Property from INDYMAC to HSBC was part of a well calculated scheme between
9 INDYMAC and HSBC to sanitize the Note. And finally, on January 15, 2009, Defendants,
10 through counsel, sent INDYMAC a Qualified Written Request (“QWR”) to put them on notice
11 that Defendants are concerned about their mortgage and believe there may have been, or may be
12 some discrepancies or violations in the originating, closing, terms or servicing of their Home loan.
13 Once in receipt of the aforementioned QWR, INDYMAC had an affirmative duty to give notice
14 to, inter alia, HSBC.
15 In light of the foregoing in Defendants’ Verified Complaint and attachments thereto, which
16 are judicially-noticeable, it appears title to the Property was not conveyed to Plaintiff under the
17 power of sale contained in the Deed of Trust and/or was not conveyed in compliance with Civil
18 Code § 2924. Thus, title has not been perfected in Plaintiff and Plaintiff is not a real party in
19 interest.
20 A plaintiff lacks standing to sue if it not is a real party in interest. See, e.g., Washington
21 Mutual Bank v. Blechman (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 662, 669 [citing Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams
22 (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1604]. Plaintiff’s lack of legal standing is pertinent to the question
23 whether Plaintiff’s UD Complaint sufficiently states a cause of action, see infra.
24 There is a difference between the capacity to sue, which is the right to come into court, and
25 the standing to sue, which is the right to relief in court (see Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams, id), in the
26 instant case Plaintiff HSBC also lacks the capacity to sue as HSBC is subject to any deficiencies
27
28

6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1 in the underlying Trustee Sale and its alleged-predecessor in interest, INDYMAC, which similarly
2 lacks such legal capacity.
3 Therefore, Plaintiff falls squarely within the objectionable grounds stated in CCP §
4 430.10(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint cannot stand and must be dismissed.
5
III
6
THIS GENERAL DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT MUST BE SUSTAINED
7 BECAUSE THE UD COMPLAINT ALSO FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE § 430.10(e)
8
CCP § 430.10 provides in pertinent part:
9
“The party against whom a complaint or cross-complaint has been filed
10 may object, by demurrer … to the pleading on any one or more of the
following grounds: … (e) The pleading does not state facts sufficient to
11
constitute a cause of action” (emphasis added).
12 A general demurrer should be sustained if a party is not the proper party to bring suit. See
13 Parker v. Bowron, (1953) 40 Cal.2d 344, 350-351.
14 Here, the pleading does not meet the cause of action requirement because plaintiff lacks
15 standing to sue, as Plaintiff is not a real party in interest (see, supra). This is also why Plaintiff’s
16 ability to state a claim is stymied.
17 Therefore, the Court cannot move forward with the merits of the case and Defendants’
18 Demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend.
19 //
20 //
21 //
22 //
23 //
24 //
25 //
26 //
27 //
28

7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1
CONCLUSION
2
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, Defendants respectfully request that this Court
3
sustain Defendants’ Demurrer without leave to amend.
4
5
Respectfully submitted,
6
7 Dated: November 18, 2009
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1 DECLARATION OF IN SUPPORT OF
2 DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
3
4 I, ____________________________, hereby declare the following:
5
6 1. I am an attorney at law, duly licensed to practice before all of the courts of the State
7 of California and am an employee of__________________________, attorneys of record for
8 Defendants ________________________and _________________________________. I have
9 personal knowledge of the facts contained in this declaration and if called as a witness, I could and
10 would testify competently to these matters under oath.
11 2. Defendants filed an action for wrongful foreclosure in San Mateo Superior Court,
12 Southern Judicial District, Unlimited Jurisdiction, on November 6, 2009 alleging, inter alia,
13 violations of California law and Federal executive orders in improperly holding the sale of
14 Defendants’ Home and in wrongfully executing, delivering, and recording Trustee’s Deed on
15 Defendants’ Property.
16 3. On November 6, 2009, concurrently with Defendants’ filing of their Complaint or
17 immediately thereafter, the purchaser of the Property in the Trustee Sale, HSBC, filed an Unlawful
18 Detainer action against Plaintiffs in San Mateo Superior Court, Southern Judicial District, Limited
19 Jurisdiction.
20
21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
22 foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 18, 2009 at Los Angeles, California.
23
______________________
24
Declarant
25
26
27
28

9
DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY F. UMBREIT
IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Attorneys for Defendants
10 JON JON MANUEL and MARIA VICTORIA MANUEL
11
12
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, SOUTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT
14 LIMITED JURISDICTION
15
16 HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ) Case No.:
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee )
17 )
) [PROPOSED] ORDER
18 Plaintiff, )
v. )
19 )
) Date: December 1, 2009
20 ) Time: 9:01 A.M.
) Dept: LM
21 )
; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, )
) Complaint Filed: November 6, 2009
22
Defendants. )
23 )
) Related Case: CIV489367 (Unlimited)
24 )
)
25 )
)
26 )
)
27 )

28

PROPOSED ORDER
1
2 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSELS OF RECORD:
3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
4 Defendants Demurrer to the Unlawful Detainer Complaint is hereby sustained without
5 leave to amend.
6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT:
7 _______________________________________________________________________________
8 _______________________________________________________________________________
9 _______________________________________________________________________________
10
11
12 DATE: _________________________ __________________________________
13 Judge of the Superior Court
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PROPOSED ORDER
1
Attorneys for Defendants
2
3
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
4 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, SOUTHERN JUDICIAL DISTRICT
5 LIMITED JURISDICTION
6
7 HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ) Case No.:
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee ) (Unlawful Detainer)
8 )
)
Plaintiff, ) PROOF OF SERVICE OF DEFENDANTS’
9 NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND
v. )
) DEMURRER; MEMORANDUM OF
10 POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
)
) SUPPORT THEREOF; DECLARATION
11 OF TIMOTHY F. UMBREIT; [PROPOSED]
)
) ORDER; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
12 NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS
)
; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, ) DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER
13 COMPLAINT; AND EXHIBIT A
)
14 Defendants. )
)
15 ) Hearing Date: December 1, 2009
) Time: 9:01 A.M.
16 ) Dept.: LM
)
17 ) UD Complaint Filed: November 6, 2009
)
18 )
) Related Case: CIV489367
19 )
)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-
PROOF OF SERVICE
1
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18
and not a party to the within action. My business address is
4
5
On November 18, 2009, I served the following document described as REQUEST FOR
6 JUDICIAL NOTICE on all interested parties in this action by placing [X] a true copy [ ] the
original thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:
7
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
8 [ ] (BY FACSIMILE) The facsimile machine I used complied with Rule 2003(3) and no error
was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2008(e)(4), I caused the machine to print a
9
record of the transaction.
10
[X] (BY MAIL, 1013a, 2015.5 C.C.P.)
11
[ ] I deposited such envelope in the mail at Los Angeles, California. The envelope was
12 mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.
13
[ ] I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and processing
14 correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, this document will be deposited with the U.S.
Postal Service on this date with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the
15 ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed
16 invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit
for mailing in affidavit.
17
[ ] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused the foregoing envelope to be delivered by hand to
18 the addressee on the attached Service List.
19
[ ] (BY FEDERAL EXPRESS ) I caused the foregoing envelope to be delivered by xxxx
20 FEDEX

21 [X] (STATE) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that
the above is true and correct.
22
23 [ ] (FEDERAL) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this
Court at whose direction the service was made.
24
Executed on November 18, 2009 at Los Angeles, California.
25
26 _______________________________

27
28

-4-
1 SERVICE LIST
2
3
4
5 Attorney(s) for Plaintiff, HSBC
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-