Ivanoff v. Bank of America, No. B271035 (Mar. 13, 2017)
Plaintiff is a pro se seeking to avoid a foreclosure. She already lost a breach of contract case against the bank, which was affirmed on appeal. Shortly thereafter, she filed a new case repackaging the same allegations as violations of the federal Truth in Lending Act, aka TILA. The superior court dismissed on claim preclusion grounds.
And the Court of Appeal affirms, albeit for different reasons. The court holds that the TILA claim was not barred by res judicata, because it arose from a different primary right. Nobody really understands what a primary right is, but apparently a claim for breach of contract arises from a different right than a claim for false disclosures under TILA. But regardless, the TILA claim was time barred. As were the other claims at issue in the appeal.
Affirmed.
Showing posts with label bank of america. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bank of america. Show all posts
Monday, May 8, 2017
Friday, July 1, 2016
With a Whimper . . .
Aghaji v. Bank of America, No. B261971 (D2d4 May 31, 2016)
This is a “mass joinder” case. That’s where hundreds of plaintiffs try to join their individual suits into a mega-litigation, without it being subject to any of the rules or restrictions of a class action. These kinds of cases keep popping up in the mortgage litigation context, where a whole swath of homeowners—often represented by a common attorney or firm—try to argue that some kind of defect in the process means that they can’t be foreclosed on, or that they don’t have to pay, or something similar to that.
This is a “mass joinder” case. That’s where hundreds of plaintiffs try to join their individual suits into a mega-litigation, without it being subject to any of the rules or restrictions of a class action. These kinds of cases keep popping up in the mortgage litigation context, where a whole swath of homeowners—often represented by a common attorney or firm—try to argue that some kind of defect in the process means that they can’t be foreclosed on, or that they don’t have to pay, or something similar to that.
Friday, April 8, 2016
Scapels and Sledgehammers
Mountjoy v. Bank of America, No. C077283 (D3 Feb. 29, 2016)
Although trial courts get a lot of deference in fee award decisions, that deference is not unlimited. The court here decided that 70 percent of the entries in plaintiff’s bills were problematic in one way or another. So it just lopped 70 percent off the total hours when it did its lodestar analysis, even though there was no evidence that the allegedly problematic entries made up 70 percent of the time. Although the Court of Appeal rejects most of plaintiff’s specific assertions of error, it finds the 70 percent across-the-board reduction to be arbitrary and thus an abuse of discretion.
Reversed.
Although trial courts get a lot of deference in fee award decisions, that deference is not unlimited. The court here decided that 70 percent of the entries in plaintiff’s bills were problematic in one way or another. So it just lopped 70 percent off the total hours when it did its lodestar analysis, even though there was no evidence that the allegedly problematic entries made up 70 percent of the time. Although the Court of Appeal rejects most of plaintiff’s specific assertions of error, it finds the 70 percent across-the-board reduction to be arbitrary and thus an abuse of discretion.
Reversed.
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Now that's Customer Service...
Greene v. Bank of Am., No. B268021 (D2d5, as modified May 28, 2015)
Plaintiff, rebuffed by a bank teller who wouldn’t cash a check drawn from the bank without opening an account, supposedly threatened to blow up the bank. Supposedly. But when he was arrested and tried for that, he was acquitted. He then sued the bank and two employees for malicious prosecution for giving a phony bomb threat report to the police.
Plaintiff, rebuffed by a bank teller who wouldn’t cash a check drawn from the bank without opening an account, supposedly threatened to blow up the bank. Supposedly. But when he was arrested and tried for that, he was acquitted. He then sued the bank and two employees for malicious prosecution for giving a phony bomb threat report to the police.
Monday, December 29, 2014
The Benefits and Burdens of Mega-Litigation
Petersen v. Bank of America, No. G048387 (D4d3 Dec. 11, 2014)
In a colorful majority opinion in 2-1 split decision reversing the trial court, the court of appeal holds that 818 individual plaintiffs can permissively join their mortgage-related claims under § 378 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Taking some good-natured jabs at the “rococo” allegations of the voluminous Third Amended Complaint—in which “[r]hetorical flourishes abound”—Justice Bedsworth’s twenty-page majority opinion references William Jennings Bryan, Aristotle, Cicero, and Herman Melville. It’s a little over the top, perhaps on purpose. But it does read like the Justice had a good time writing it and the analysis doesn’t suffer for the style. Indeed, the opinion devotes the bulk of its discussion to analysis and forgoes the needless but all too typical recitation of the parties’ arguments and other procedural minutiae from the case below. That all said, this one seems like a pretty close call, or at least it seems so to me.
In a colorful majority opinion in 2-1 split decision reversing the trial court, the court of appeal holds that 818 individual plaintiffs can permissively join their mortgage-related claims under § 378 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Taking some good-natured jabs at the “rococo” allegations of the voluminous Third Amended Complaint—in which “[r]hetorical flourishes abound”—Justice Bedsworth’s twenty-page majority opinion references William Jennings Bryan, Aristotle, Cicero, and Herman Melville. It’s a little over the top, perhaps on purpose. But it does read like the Justice had a good time writing it and the analysis doesn’t suffer for the style. Indeed, the opinion devotes the bulk of its discussion to analysis and forgoes the needless but all too typical recitation of the parties’ arguments and other procedural minutiae from the case below. That all said, this one seems like a pretty close call, or at least it seems so to me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)