Ramon M. Gonzalez, Esq. (State Bar No.

: 220891)
1 The Gonzalez Law Firm, P.C.
9401 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 840
2
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
3
Office: (310) 592-0245
Fax: (323) 421-9381
4
Attorneys for Plaintiff KRISTIE LAUREL HOLLIDAY
5

6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

7 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (UNLIMITED CIVIL)
8

10 ) Case No.: ____________

KRISTIE LAUREL HOLLIDAY,
)
11 )
Plaintiff,
) VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR:
12 )
vs. ) 1. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
13 )
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC, a 2. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
) 3. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
14 Limited Liability Company; and Does 1 to )
4. BREACH OF IMPLIED
20, Inclusive, )
15 ) COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH
) AND FAIR DEALING;
Defendants.
16 5. JUDGMENT TO SET ASIDE
TRUSTEE’S SALE;
17 6. JUDGMENT TO CANCEL
TRUSTEE’S DEED;
18 7. QUIET TITLE;
8. PRELIMINARY AND
19
PERMANENT INJUNCTION;
20
9. DECLARATORY RELIEF;
10. FRAUDULENT
21 MISREPRESENTATION

22 (DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL)

23

24 Comes now Plaintiff, and demanding trial by jury, complains and alleges as follows:

25

1
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 PARTIES

2 1. Plaintiff KRISTIE LAUREL HOLLIDAY, now, and at all times relevant to this

3 complaint, is an individual residing in the County of Los Angeles, and the former owner and

4 resident of real property commonly known as 17552 Index Street, Granada Hills, CA 91344

5 (the “subject property”) (A.P.N.# 2711-007-026) and legally described in Exhibit A.

6
2. Defendant AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC (“AURORA”), and at all times

mentioned and relevant herein, a Limited Liability Company conducting business in the County
7
of Los Angeles, State of California (“AURORA”), and is the subsidiary of Lehman Brothers
8
Bank, FSB.
9
3. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
10
otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who
11
therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and
12
on that basis allege, that each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE is responsible in
13
some manner, way, form and to some extent for the events and occurrences referred to herein,
14
and for the damages resulting to Plaintiff. At such times as Plaintiff learns the true name and
15
capacity of any Defendant named as a DOE herein, Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend
16
his complaint to identify said Defendant, and include accompanying charging allegations.
17
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
18
4. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court because damages sought exceed
19
the jurisdictional limit and all parties reside and/or conduct business in the County of Los
20
Angeles, and the subject property and unlawful conduct that gave rise to these claims occurred
21
within said county.
22
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
23 5. On October 17, 2003, plaintiff and her former husband, Peter A. Holiday
24 (“Peter”), purchased the subject property at 17552 Index Street, Granada Hills, CA 91344

25 with a first mortgage from “Long Beach Mortgage Company” in the amount of $384,000.

2
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 6. On or about January 30, 2006, plaintiff and Peter refinanced the subject property

2 with a first mortgage from Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB (parent company of defendant Aurora
Loan Services, LLC) in the amount of $620,000 (loan #: 0037448164). The Deed of Trust
3
(instrument no. 100025440002972542) was recorded on February 1, 2006. Exhibit B.
4
7. On February 23, 2008, plaintiff and Peter separated. Peter moved out of the
5
house while plaintiff remained in the house with their three minor children.
6
8. During 2008, the Hollidays’ business experienced a significant decline in
7 income because of the downturn in the economy. By Nov. 2008, they were having difficulty
8 making their mortgage payments.
9 9. On or about March 4, 2009, the United States Department of Treasury issued a

10 government program (hereinafter, the “Program”) setting forth certain guidelines known as the
Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”).
11
10. Due to financial hardship caused by the economic recession, they were unable to
12
make the payment to Aurora Loan Services due April 1, 2009.
13
11. The May, June, July and August 2009 payments to Aurora Loan Services were
14
not made. Being a homemaker and in the middle of a divorce, plaintiff did not have the money
15
to catch up on the delinquent payments.
16 12. On July 13, 2009, AURORA recorded a Notice Of Default (noting arrearages
17 of $17,391.35 as of 07-10-09) (instrument no. 20091046127; trustee’s sale no. CA-09-298832-

18 CL) against the subject property. Exhibit C. At no time prior to this did Aurora or any

19 other representatives or agents of defendant attempt to contact Plaintiff or Peter to

explore alternatives to foreclosure pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code section 2923.5(b).
20
13. On Aug. 24, 2009, plaintiff called Aurora Loan Services’ Loss Mitigation
21
Department and spoke with “Loretta” about her options. Plaintiff was told the Notice of Default
22
was filed on July 13, 2009 and that the projected Trustee’s Sale Date was Nov. 4, 2009. Of the
23
options available, plaintiff was told she would possibly qualify for either a loan modification or
24
a short sale. Plaintiff told her she was interested in a loan modification and specifically
25 requested HAMP.

3
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 14. Over the next three weeks, plaintiff gave AURORA financial figures, faxed

2 them the required documents, and made several calls to them.

15. On Sept. 8, 2009, plaintiff spoke worked with AJ Kahn (“Kahn”) from American
3
National Home Litigation Services to help her get the loan modification. Kahn started working
4
with Aurora Loan Services on the loan modification. See Kahn Declaration.
5
16. On September 23, 2009, Kahn faxed AURORA the necessary 3rd party
6
authorization form. See Kahn Declaration.
7 17. On October 15, 2009, AURORA recorded a Notice Of Trustee's Sale
8 (instrument no. 20091563414), noting a sale date of November 4th and an unpaid balance of
9 $646,195.55. Exhibit D.

10 18. That same day, October 15th, Kahn learned from Aurora that plaintiff had
been approved for a HAMP loan modification ($2,637.35 including PITI per month) and
11
that the new loan paperwork would be sent “soon” and thus there would be a temporary
12
hold on the sale. (The paperwork never arrived.)
13
19. According to the terms presented to plaintiff, the first 3 months of the new
14
payment would be the “trial” period, and that after Aurora received those three
15
payments, Aurora would make the modification permanent and send her the terms in
16 writing regarding her new loan. Aurora’s representative stated Aurora would not
17 foreclose on her property while she was in active review, and so long as she provided all

18 requested information and documentation, and made all the requisite payments in a

19 timely manner.
20. That same day, October 15th, Plaintiff personally called Aurora and was
20
told all of the information. She was also told that the trial period payments had to be in
21
the form of certified funds, i.e. a cashier’s check. Plaintiff orally accepted this trial period
22
agreement.
23
21. Because of plaintiff’s loan modification, Aurora informed Plaintiff that her
24
trustee’s sale would not go forward on November 4th.
25

4
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 22. On Oct. 30, 2009, plaintiff sent her first payment of $2,637.35 via certified check

2 was sent to: Aurora Loan Services, Attn: Cashiering Dept., 10350 Park Meadows Drive,
Littleton, CO 80124. Exhibit E (copies of all cashier’s checks).
3
23. On November 10, 2009, “Tamika” at AURORA informed Kahn that the payment
4
was received on November 6, 2009 and the modification documents were sent out on November
5
5, 2009. Plaintiff never received the modification documents.
6
24. On November 12, 2009, “Mary Ann” at AURORA informed Kahn that
7 Plaintiff’s payments for the loan modification must be made on the first of each month, the first
8 payment already made on November 1, 2009.
9 25. On Nov. 23, 2009, plaintiff sent the second modification payment (due Dec. 1,

10 2009) of $2,637.35 via certified check to Cashiering Dept. at same address as above. Id.
26. Around that time, plaintiff called Aurora to ask about the details of the
11
modification, since she hadn’t received the promised packet. She was told that Aurora would
12
send her the details after receipt of the three trial payments and thereafter make the modification
13
permanent.
14
27. On Dec. 2, 2009, plaintiff sent the third modification payment (due Jan. 1, 2010)
15
of $2,637.35 via certified check to Cashiering Dept. at same address as above. Id.
16 28. On Feb. 1, 2010, plaintiff called Aurora to make a payment by phone (since she
17 was no longer in the “trial period”). She was told that the payment still had to be made via

18 certified funds because “the modification was still in the Loss Mitigation Department” and that

19 “that department was a little behind.” Plaintiff explained she hadn’t been aware of that, and that
she had been told it was just the first 3 payments. Plaintiff was told that “it’s fine, just get a
20
certified check and send it overnight delivery”. She was told her loan modification would not
21
be “negatively affected”. The representative she spoke to stated that the loan modification was
22
noted in the file as being “in place”.
23
29. The next day, February 2nd, Plaintiff got a certified check of $2,637.35 and sent it
24
USPS overnight delivery to the Cashiering Department in Littleton, CO. Id.
25

5
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 30. On March 1, 2010, plaintiff called Aurora and was told once again that the funds

2 had to be certified, and that Aurora could not yet accept a payment over the phone. She asked
the representative if this was a permanent condition, or would she eventually be able to make a
3
payment via the phone or non-certified check. She was assured that this was just “temporary”
4
until AURORA did the final paperwork on the loan modification. She was told that AURORA
5
was “a little behind, but not to worry.” She got the certified check and sent it USPS overnight
6
delivery to the Cashiering Department in Littleton, CO. This was the fifth “trial plan” payment
7 she made. Id.
8 31. On March 25, 2010, plaintiff received a letter dated March 18th from Aurora
9 Loan Services. Despite the fact that plaintiff had already made five timely payments (two more

10 than she was required to complete her modification), the letter stated that “we are unable to
offer you a loan modification at this time for the following reasons: Your financial information
11
indicates inability to afford the modified payments.” Exhibit F. The letter went on to state that
12
there are “other options available to avoid foreclosure. Please contact [Aurora] immediately” to
13
explore her options.
14
32. On or around March 26, 2010, Plaintiff informed Kahn that she received a letter
15
from Aurora denying her loan modification. Kahn called AURORA and spoke to “Antonio”
16 who informed me that the reason for Plaintiff’s denial was due to a negative cash flow of
17 $3,500.00. Kahn recommended that since her divorce was finalized, plaintiff should resubmit

18 new financials in her name only. Kahn immediately faxed AURORA a new updated financial

19 package with Plaintiff’s divorce decree.

33. On March 26, 2010, Kahn called Aurora and was told that because plaintiff was
20
now divorced, she could resubmit her financial information to try for a new modification.
21
Plaintiff gathered the information and documentation he needed to resubmit to Aurora. Kahn
22
immediately faxed them to AURORA. Aurora failed to review Plaintiff for a HAMP
23
modification based on this final submission.
24
34. On March 29, 2010, without any warning or notice whatsoever, AURORA
25 attempted to sell the subject property at a Trustee’s Sale. No third party purchased it and,

6
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 therefore, AURORA “purchased” the subject property as an REO (“real estate-owned”)

2 property and took title for $662,550.84. A Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale was recorded on April 5,
2010 (instrument no. 20100458327). Exhibit G.
3
35. On March 30, 2010, plaintiff came home in the afternoon to a notice on her door
4
from Paul Hargraves with Remax that stated her home was now “bank-owned”.
5
36. Kahn immediately called AURORA and was told by “Jim” that the house had
6
been sold in a trustee sale that day, one business day after AURORA had told Kahn to resubmit
7 the Plaintiff’s modification paperwork. The representative said that no notice was mailed out to
8 the Plaintiff and he did not know why “Antonio” had not mentioned that the sale date was
9 approaching. Jim informed Kahn that the matter was now in the attorney’s office with Quality

10 Loan Services. Kahn had no notice or warning of the trustee’s sale.

37. Other than the letter dated March 18th, plaintiff never received any notification
11
that things were not working out and that AURORA was going to sell her house on March 29th.
12
She had been paying the loan modification, on time, for 5 months.
13
38. On April 12, 2010, Aurora filed an Unlawful Detainer action against Plaintiff
14
(case no. 10H00988). Exhibit H.
15
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §2923.5 VIOLATIONS
16 39. California Civil Code §2923.5 (operative on July 8, 2008) sets forth very specific
17 requirements that lenders must follow prior to filing a Notice of Default for loans made from

18 January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2007. The spirit of the bill is to promote work-outs between

19 the borrower and the lender in lieu of foreclosure. In the present case, California Civil Code
§2923.5 applies as the subject loan was made on or around January 30, 2006. The Notice of
20
Default was recorded on July 13, 2009. In its §2923.5 declaration, Keli Tune of Quality Loan
21
Servicing Company, as agent for beneficiary, states the following:
22
“The Beneficiary or its designated agent declares that it has contacted the
23
borrower, tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by
24
California Civil Code §2923.5 or the borrower has surrendered the property to
25

7
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 the beneficiary or authorized agent, or is otherwise exempt from the

2 requirements of California Civil Code 2923.5.”

40. Defendants failed to abide by the requirements set forth in California Civil Code.
3
Specifically, Defendants made no attempts whatsoever to contact Plaintiff to explore alternative
4
to foreclosure prior to recording the Notice of Default on July 13, 2009. Plaintiff received no
5
documentation from Aurora or its agents regarding said alternatives. Further, Plaintiff received
6
no phone calls from Aurora regarding the same. Aurora has Plaintiff’s home phone number and
7 cell phone number as contact numbers. Plaintiff’s home number and cell phone number are
8 connected to an answering machine and voicemail service, respectively, that capture all calls 24
9 hours a day in the event Plaintiff is not home or does not answer her cell phone. Plaintiff never

10 received any such messages from defendants on her answering machine or cell phone voice
mail prior to July 13, 2009. Nor was any contact made in person by defendant regarding said
11
alternatives.
12
41. Plaintiff has not surrendered the subject property and did not work with any third
13
party in regards to her loan until Sept. 8, 2009, or almost two months after the Notice of Default
14
was recorded. Plaintiff has not filed for bankruptcy. Aurora is not otherwise exempt from the
15
requirements of California Civil Code 2923.5.
16 42. Thus, defendants’ ambiguous, contradictory and blanket "due diligence"
17 statement completely fails to satisfy the superficial requirements of California

18 Civil Code §2923.5(b) and (g)(l)(2)(A)(B)(C)(3)(4)(5), as well as failing to satisfy the

19 legislative intent behind §2923.5.

43. California Civil Code §2923.5(b) dictates that every notice of default "shall
20
include a declaration from the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent that it has contacted
21
the borrower, tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by this section or the
22
borrower has surrendered the property to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized
23
agent." The Notice of Default declaration fails to show any compliance with the specific contact
24
requirements. First, it is utterly unclear as to who did what. Was it the mortgagee, beneficiary
25 or some authorized agent who attempted contact? Was it by mail or telephone or both? Which

8
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 authorized agent? It is also unclear what if any correspondence was supposedly sent to Plaintiff,

2 and what was the substance of that correspondence, if any? What was the result of the "due
diligence?" There is no way to determine from the statement whether said attempts were made
3
at least thirty days prior to recording the Notice of Default. Making what looks to be a standard
4
blanket statement does not satisfy the declaration requirement in Civil Code §2923.5(b).
5
44. The suspect statement also fails to demonstrate the requisite due diligence that is
6
clearly detailed in Civil Code §2923.5(g)(l)(2)(A)(B)(C) (5)(A)(B)(C)(D). The statement does
7 not specify whether Defendants satisfied the due diligence requirements to:
8 1- send a first-class letter including the toll free telephone number for HUD; then
9 following the mailing of the letter;

10 2- attempt to contact Plaintiff at least three times at different hours and on

different days;
11
3- use an automated system to dial Plaintiff; and
12
4-post a prominent link on the homepage of Defendants' Internet Web site.
13
45. The §2923.5(b) statement also fails to satisfy California Code of Civil Procedure
14
§2015.5, which states in pertinent part:
15
"Whenever, under any law of this state or under any rule, regulation, order or
16 requirement made pursuant to the law of this state, any matter is required or permitted to
17 be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn statement, declaration,

18 verification, certificate, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same, such

19 may with like force and effect to be supported, evidenced, established or proved by the
unsworn statement, declaration, verification, or certificate, in writing of such person
20
which recites that it is certified or declared by him or her to be true under penalty of
21
perjury, is subscribed by him or her, and (1), if executed within this state, states the
22
date and place of execution, or (2), if executed at any place, within or without this state,
23
states the date of execution and that it is so certified or declared under the laws of the
24
State of California." (Emphasis added.)
25

9
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 Here, the §2923.5(b) statement fails to state the place of execution and, therefore, voids the

2 Notice of Default.
46. Regardless, even assuming for argument’s sake that defendants did in fact
3
contact Plaintiff prior to July 13, 2009 (when the Notice of Default was recorded) to explore
4
options to avoid foreclosure, defendants nevertheless violated that statute because they fail to
5
show in their declaration that the Notice of Default was after the requisite 30-day waiting
6
period following said contacts. Specifically, § 2923.5(a) states that:
7 “(1) A mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent may not file a notice of default
8 pursuant to Section 2924 until 30 days after contact is made as required by paragraph (2) or 30
9 days after satisfying the due diligence requirements as described in subdivision(g).”

10 Because of the blanket statement in said declaration, there is no way to determine whether
defendants did in fact wait 30 days after the requisite contact to record the Notice of Default.
11
47. Further, the statement entirely fails to preserve the spirit of California Civil Code
12
§2923.5. In enacting §2923.5, California Legislature noted "it is essential to the economic
13
health of California for the state to ameliorate the deleterious effects on the state economy and
14
local economies and the California housing market that will result from the continued
15
foreclosures of residential properties in unprecedented numbers by modifying the foreclosure
16 process to require mortgagees, beneficiaries, or authorized agents to contact borrowers and
17 explore options that could avoid foreclosure." See Historical and Statutory Notes to California

18 Civil Code §2923.5, Section 1(d). This intent, together with the strict contact requirements of

19 §2923.5, reveals a due diligence mandate, imposed on mortgagees and beneficiaries, to actively
contact the borrower for the purpose of exploring alternatives to foreclosure, including a
20
modification of the mortgage loan terms.
21
48. As a result, the Notice of Default, Notice of Trustee’s Sale, the Trustee’s Sale
22
itself, and the Deed Upon Trustee’s Sale are all void.
23
HOME AFFORDABLE MODIFICATION PROGRAM (“HAMP”)
24
49. On or about March 4, 2009, the United States Department of Treasury issued a
25 government program (hereinafter, the “Program”) setting forth certain guidelines known as the

10
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”), which provides incentives to servicers,

2 lenders and investors to modify first lien home loans that originated before January 1, 2009, that
do not exceed $729,750, and that are owner-occupied (hereinafter, the “Guidelines”).
3
According to its website, Aurora is a participating servicer/lender in the HAMP program:
4
https://www.myauroraloan.com/docs/Aurora_HAMP_Package.pdf.
5
50. Plaintiff is a borrower who meets the minimum criteria to be considered for the
6
federally-funded Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”): (a) she defaulted on her
7 mortgage due to financial hardship; (b) the mortgaged property is her primary residence; (c) her
8 mortgage originated before January 2009; (d) the balance owed on her mortgage does not
9 exceed the limits set forth by HAMP; and (e) her monthly payments on her mortgage for

10 principal, interest, property taxes, and insurance exceed 31% of her gross monthly income.
Plaintiff is therefore entitled to have her mortgage reviewed for modification by defendants.
11
51. Aurora is a participating lender in HAMP and has entered into an actual contract
12
with the United States Treasury Department binding AURORA to the Program Guidelines. As
13
such, AURORA is subject to the U.S. Treasury’s modification program guidelines for HAMP.
14
Said guidelines promulgated on March 4, 2009 clearly require “any foreclosure action be
15
temporarily suspended during the trial period, or while the borrowers are considered for
16 alternative foreclosure prevention options.” Home Affordable Modification Program
17 Guidelines, March 4, 2009,

18 https://www.treas.gov/press/releases/reports/modification_program_guidelines.pdf (last visited

19 December 07, 2009).

52. Absent HAMP modification, Plaintiff faces foreclosure, the very result for which
20
HAMP was created to prevent. Notwithstanding AURORA’s contractual obligations under
21
HAMP, AURORA has breached the agreement in a number of ways. Among other things,
22
AURORA has wrongfully denied Plaintiff access to the benefits of HAMP by (1) refusing to
23
evaluate her loan for a HAMP modification in good faith, even when Plaintiff approached
24
AURORA with specific requests to be considered for HAMP, and (2) initiated, failed to
25 suspend or threatened to institute foreclosure proceedings against Plaintiff even after she asked

11
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 to be considered for HAMP. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order from the

2 Court that any future sale of Plaintiff’s home by AURORA or its agents be postponed
indefinitely until AURORA determines Plaintiff’s eligibility for HAMP.
3

4
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF CONTRACT
5
(Against All Defendants)
6 53. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all the allegations of the
7 preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.

8 54. As alleged hereinabove, AURORA entered into a contract with the U.S. Treasury

9 Department which obligates AURORA to modify qualifying loans under HAMP. Plaintiff is an
intended third-party beneficiary to these contracts and therefore has standing to bring this
10
action. Because Plaintiff qualifies for HAMP, AURORA’s refusal to consider Plaintiff for a
11
HAMP loan modification constitutes a breach of said contract.
12
55. Had defendants performed a good faith review of Plaintiff’s loan (including
13
following her final submission one business day prior to the trustee’s sale) under the HAMP
14 guidelines, defendants would have determined that Plaintiff qualified under said program and
15 modify her loan under said terms. Plaintiff would have thereby been able to afford the loan and
16 thereby avoid foreclosure.

17 56. As a proximate result of defendants’ breach, Plaintiff faces the permanent loss

18
of and eviction from her home and will thereby suffer economic loss in an amount to be
determined at trial.
19
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
20 BREACH OF CONTRACT
(Against All Defendants)
21 57. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all the allegations of the
22 preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
23 58. On October 15, 2009, plaintiff learned from Aurora that she had been approved

24 for a HAMP loan modification ($2,637.35 including PITI per month) and that the new loan

25

12
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 paperwork would be sent “soon” and thus there would be a temporary hold on the sale. (The

2 paperwork never arrived.)

59. According to the terms presented to plaintiff, the first 3 months of the new
3
payment would be the “trial” period, and that after Aurora received those three
4
payments, Aurora would make the modification permanent and send her the terms in
5
writing regarding her new loan. Aurora’s representative stated Aurora would not
6
foreclose on her property while she was in active review, and so long as she provided all
7 requested information and documentation, and made all the requisite payments in a
8 timely manner. Plaintiff was also told that the trial period payments had to be in the
9 form of certified funds, i.e. a cashier’s check.

10 60. Plaintiff orally accepted this trial period agreement (the “Agreement”) and in
reliance thereon, she made five monthly payments (two more than was required by the
11
Agreement) via certified funds in the correct amount and in a timely manner. (Exhibit E.)
12
Specifically, these payments were made on October 30, November 23 and December 2, 2009,
13
and February 2, 2010. Id. Thus, Plaintiff honored her end of the oral contract.
14
61. On March 29, 2010, without any warning or notice to plaintiff whatsoever,
15
AURORA attempted to sell the subject property at a Trustee’s Sale. No third party purchased it
16 and, therefore, AURORA “purchased” the subject property as an REO (“real estate-owned”)
17 property and took title for $662,550.84. A Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale was recorded on April 5,

18 2010 (instrument no. 20100458327). Exhibit G.

19 62. As a result, AURORA breached its oral contract with Plaintiff by proceeding
with the trustee’s sale despite the fact that Plaintiff had made all the required payments under
20
the Agreement in a timely manner.
21
63. As a proximate result of defendants’ breach, Plaintiff faces the permanent loss
22
of and eviction from her home and will thereby suffer economic loss in an amount to be
23
determined at trial.
24

25 ///

13
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
1 BREACH OF CONTRACT
(Against All Defendants)
2
64. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all the allegations of the
3
preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
4
65. Based on the foregoing, the parties entered into a valid, binding oral contract
5
wherein defendant agreed not to foreclose on the subject property if Plaintiff provided all the
6 requested documentation and information, and made all the requisite payments in a timely
7 manner. By doing all of these, Plaintiff honored her end of the contract.

8 66. In justifiable reliance on this Agreement, plaintiff did not hire an attorney, file

9 for bankruptcy or take any legal action to prevent her home from being foreclosed upon by
defendant.
10
67. Defendant breached this contract by foreclosing on Plaintiff’s property.
11
68. As a proximate result of defendants’ breach, Plaintiff faces the permanent loss
12
of and eviction from her home and will thereby suffer economic loss in an amount to be
13
determined at trial.
14 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
15 (Against All Defendants)

16 69. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all the allegations of the
preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
17
70. Defendants represented to the U.S. Treasury Department that it would honor the
18
terms of its HAMP contract. Upon information and belief, defendants had no intention of doing
19
so. As such, defendants breached the implied covenant and good faith and fair dealing.
20
71. Plaintiff is an intended third-party beneficiary of that contract and therefore has
21 standing to sue for that claim.
22 72. Similarly, defendants represented to Plaintiff that it would honor the terms of the
23 Special Forbearance Agreement.

24 73. Upon information and belief, defendants had no intention of doing so.

25

14
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 74. Finally, in regards to the Loan Modification Agreement, defendants represented

2 to plaintiff that they would not foreclose on her house so long as she provided all the requisite
information and documentation and made all required payments, which she did in a timely
3
manner.
4
75. Upon information and belief, defendants had no intention of honoring this
5
agreement to refrain from foreclosing on her home.
6
76. As a proximate result of the aforementioned actions by defendants, Plaintiff
7 faces the permanent loss of and eviction from her home and will thereby suffer economic loss in
8 an amount to be determined at trial.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9
JUDGMENT TO SET ASIDE TRUSTEE’S SALE
10
(Against All Defendants)
77. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all the allegations of the
11
preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
12
78. For the reasons stated hereinabove, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon
13
alleges that the trustee’s sale of March 29, 2010 was not conducted in compliance with the
14 requirements of Civil Code section 2923.5 which became effective prior to, and apply to, said
15 trustee’s sale.
16 79. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the trustee’s sale was

17 improperly held and the trustee’s deed wrongfully executed, delivered, and recorded in that the

18
trustee’s sale was conducted with invalid and improper presale procedures, in violation of the
terms and conditions of the promissory note and deed of trust and in violation of the duties and
19
obligations of defendant beneficiary to Plaintiff, including but not limited to those obligations
20
set forth in Civil Code section 2923.5, all to Plaintiff’s loss and damage in that Plaintiff has
21
been wrongfully deprived of the beneficial use and enjoyment of the real property and has been
22
deprived of legal title by forfeiture.
23 80. Further, based on defendants’ breach of the Agreement identified hereinabove,
24 defendants unlawfully foreclosed on the subject property.

25

15
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 81. Plaintiff offers to tender to defendants all amounts due and owing so that the

2 claimed default may be cured and Plaintiff may be reinstated to all former rights and privileges
under the promissory note and deed of trust. Plaintiff is ready, willing, and able to tender those
3
sums, if any, that the Court finds due and owing.
4

5 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

JUDGMENT TO CANCEL TRUSTEE’S DEED
6
(Against All Defendants)
7 82. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all the allegations of the

8 preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.

9 83. Defendants claim an estate or interest in the subject property described

hereinabove adverse to that of Plaintiff, but Defendants’ claims are without any right because
10
defendants have no estate, right, title, or interest in the real property.
11
84. The claims of defendants are based on the trustee’s deed described hereinabove,
12
and purporting to convey the property to defendants.
13
85. Although the trustee’s deed appears valid on its face, it is invalid and void or
14 voidable and of no force or effect regarding Plaintiff’s interest in the subject property for the
15 reasons set forth hereinabove.
16 86. The estate or interest in the subject property claimed by defendants, purportedly

17 based upon a trustee’s deed, strips Plaintiff’s title, interest and equity in the subject property,

18
restricts Plaintiff’s full use and enjoyment of the real property, and hinders Plaintiff’s right to
unrestricted alienation of it. If the trustee’s deed is not delivered and canceled, there is a
19
absolute certainty that Plaintiff will suffer serious and irreparable injury.
20

21 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

QUIET TITLE
22 (Against All Defendants)
23 87. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all the allegations of the

24 preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.

25

16
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 88. Plaintiff seeks to quiet title against the ownership claim of defendants as

2 purported by the trustee’s deed upon the sale because defendants’ claim is without any right and
defendants have no right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the subject property.
3
89. Plaintiff names as defendants in this action all persons unknown claiming (a) any
4
legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the subject property adverse to Plaintiff’s
5
title, or (b) any cloud on Plaintiff’s title to the property. The claims of each unknown defendant
6
are without any right, and these defendants have no right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the
7 subject property.
8 90. Plaintiff desires and is entitled to a judicial declaration quieting title in Plaintiff’s
9 favor as of March 28, 2010, the day before the Trustee’s Sale, and restoring possession to

10 Plaintiff.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
(Against All Defendants)
12
91. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all the allegations of the
13
preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
14 92. As stated above, defendants wrongfully and unlawfully instituted and prosecuted
15 a foreclosure against Plaintiff’s home and now seek to evict Plaintiff from her home.
16 93. Said foreclosure is based on the above referenced contracts which defendants

17 breached in bad faith.

18
94. By reason of the wrongful and unlawful foreclosure, Plaintiff will sustain great
and irreparable injury because she will permanently lose her home of many years, and it will be
19
impossible for Plaintiff to obtain adequate relief by way of money damages because of the
20
unique nature of real property and, therefore, is without an adequate remedy at law.
21
95. Plaintiff will have sustained damages in excess of the jurisdictional limit of this
22
Court, and, if the trustee’s sale is not set aside and the trustee’s deed upon sale cancelled, will
23 sustain further damages in an amount to be determined. Plaintiff will, therefore, seek leave of
24 the Court to amend his Complaint to state the amounts thereof when the same have been

25 ascertained.

17
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
DECLARATORY RELIEF
2
(Against All Defendants)
3 96. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all the allegations of the
4 preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.

5 97. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and

6
Defendants regarding their respective rights and duties under the contracts identified
hereinabove and Defendants’ authority to conduct a foreclosure sale against the subject
7
property.
8
98. Plaintiff contends that Defendants had an obligation strictly follow the above-
9
described statutory foreclosure procedures, including but not limited to attempting to find
10
alternatives to foreclosure under Civil Code § 2923.5 and failing to record the Notice of Default
11 after the requisite 30-day waiting period pursuant to Civil Code § 2923.5(a); and that
12 Defendants failed to do all of the above. Defendants are expected to claim that they were

13 entitled to foreclose based on a Plaintiff’s failure to make the subject loan payments and that

14 they followed all statutory procedures.

99. Plaintiff therefore desires a judicial determination of the parties’ rights and
15
duties, and a declaration as to whether Defendants had a duty to suspend the subject foreclosure
16
sale.
17
100. A judicial determination is needed because Defendants are attempting to sell the
18
subject property which will permanently deprive Plaintiff of the equity, title and use and
19
enjoyment of her home.
20 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
21 (Against All Defendants)
101. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by this reference all the allegations of the
22
preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
23
102. Defendants, through their agents, have made the following fraudulent
24
misrepresentations: (1) that they would suspend foreclosure proceedings while Plaintiff’s file
25
was in active review and so long as she provided all the requested documentation and

18
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 information; (2) that they would suspend foreclosure proceedings so long as she made the

2 required payments under the Agreement; and (3) that Plaintiff would receive a written contract
memorializing the terms of the Agreement;
3
103. When Defendants made said representations, they knew them to be false and
4
made them with the intention to deceive Plaintiff and induce her to act (or not act) in reliance
5
thereon.
6
104. At the time these representations were made by Defendants, Plaintiff was
7 ignorant of the falsity of Defendants’ representations and believed them to be true. Based on
8 said representations, Plaintiff was lulled to her detriment to adhere from taking legal action to
9 prevent said foreclosure by consulting an attorney, filing a lawsuit and/or filing bankruptcy,

10 actions which Plaintiff would have otherwise taken (and which would have stopped said sale)
had she known the truth.
11
105. As a proximate result of the fraudulent conduct of Defendants, Defendants intend
12
to evict Plaintiff from her property and sell it to a third party, thereby depriving Plaintiff of the
13
beneficial use and enjoyment thereof.
14
106. As a proximate result of the aforementioned actions by defendants, Plaintiff
15
faces the permanent loss of and eviction from her home and will thereby suffer economic loss in
16 an amount to be determined at trial.
17 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

18 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows:

19 a. For actual damages according to proof;

b. For compensatory damages as permitted by law;
20
c. For consequential damages as permitted by law;
21
d. For statutory damages as permitted by law;
22
e. For equitable relief, including restitution;
23
f. For interest as permitted by law;
24
g. For reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and
25

19
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 h. For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

2 Respectfully submitted.

3
Dated: June __, 2010 The Gonzalez Law Firm, P.C.
4
By:______________________________
5 Ramon M. Gonzalez, Esq.
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
 1 VERIFICATION

2
I, KRISTIE LAUREL HOLLIDAY, am the plaintiff in this action. I have read the
3
complaint and the facts and allegations contained therein are true to the best of my knowledge,
4
except as to those matters stated on information or belief and, as to those matters, I believe them
5
also to be true.
6
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
7

8 Executed at the City of ___________________, CA, on June __, 2010.

9

10
_____________________________________
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21
VERIFIED COMPLAINT