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.