IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE B264162 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No, BC350713) (Mark V. Mooney, Judge) BRENDA WHITMAN, et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, NOTICE OF INTENT TO GRANT PEREMPTORY WRIT OF MANDATE, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE Respondent; ONEWEST BANK, FSB, aa nse se000 FILED AUG 24 2015 WOBERH A Las cg BY THE COURT:* ae Deny ak ‘We have read and considered the petition for writ of mandate filed by petitioner on Real Party in Interest. May 20, 2015, and the preliminary opposition filed by real party in interest on May 28, 2015. We hereby order a stay of the trial in this matter, pending resolution of this, petition or further order of this court. On March 20, 2015, respondent court issued an order sustaining without leave to amend the demurrer filed by real party in interest as to petitioner’s claims for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq. We have concluded that the demurrer was erroneously sustained on the . § 1461 et basis that the claims are preempted by the Home Owners Loan Act (12 U: seq.), and that the demurrer should have been overruled. Accordingly, all parties to the petition are notified this court is considering the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate in the first instance (Lewis v. Superior Court(1999) 19 Cal-Ath 1232; Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171), directing the respondent court to vacate its order of March 20, 2015. ‘The respondent court may avoid issuance of a peremptory writ by vacating its order of March 20, 2015, sustaining without leave to amend the demurrer as to petitioner's causes of action for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., and entering a new order overruling the demurrer. The trial court is granted the power and jurisdiction to do so, in exception to the existence of the stay entered by this court. Before doing so, however, the respondent court “must inform the parties that it is considering taking sueh action and provide them with an opportunity to be heard,” as required by the Supreme Court in Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1250. Petitioner must inform this court on or before September 8, 2015, whether the trial court has scheduled a hearing for the purpose of revisiting its rulings. Should the trial court elect not to change its order in response to this notice, this court intends to continue in effect the stay of the trial in this matter, pending resolution of this petition or further order of this court. In that event, real party in interest would be permitted to file plenary opposition on or before September 14, 2015, or in the alternative, may rely om its previously filed opposition in place of filing additional opposition. If real party in interest files further opposition, petitioner would be permitted to file a plenary reply on or before September 24, 2015. (Brown, Winfield & Canzoneri, Ine. v. Superior Court (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1233, 1238.) * EDMON, P.J. LAVIN, J. JONES, J.** ## Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.RECEI View -vu 2d cud Amanda Lee Gray Bergman & Gutierrez LLP 880 Apollo Street Suite 334 El Segundo, CA 90245 Case Number B264162 Division 3 BRENDA WHITMAN, Petitioner, v. S.C.LA. etal., Respondents; ONEWEST BANK, Real Party in Interest.| RECEIVED AUG 22.24 BECEIVED 646 #6 O~ Deborah P. Gutierrez Bergman & Gutierrez LLP 880 Apollo Street, Suite 334 EI Segundo, CA 90245 Case Number B264162 Division 3 BRENDA WHITMAN, Petitioner, v. S.CLLA. etal, Respondents; ONEWEST BANK, Real Party in Interest.RECEIVED Auu 2 6 wis Penelope Park Bergman Bergman & Gutierrez LLP 880 Apollo Street, Suite 334 El Segundo, CA 90245 Case Number B264162 Division 3 BRENDA WHITMAN, Petitioner, S.C.L.A. et al., Respondents; ONEWEST BANK, Real Party in Interest.