Citi Joinder

1 Philip A.
Kramer SBN # 113969

KRAMER & KASLOW
2
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2013
3
Calabasas, CA 91302
Tel: (818) 224-3900
4 Fax: (818) 224-3911
5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
8
RICHARD WAGNER an individual; ) Case No. BC452265
9 MELISSA SISSON, an individual; )
PEDRO NUNEZ SANTACRUZ, an ) [Assigned to Judge Mel Red Recana,
10 individual; ) Department 45]
GABRIEL CASTANARES, an individual; )
11 STEPHEN HUPE, an individual; ) COMPLAINT FOR:
NATALYA HUPE, an individual; )
12 DAI VU, an individual; ) 1. FRAUDULENT
ANNE PHAM, an individual; ) CONCEALMENT
13
STEPHEN VICTOR ZAMPAGA, an ) [VIOLATION OF CAL. CIV.
14
individual; )
KARA ANN DUFFY, an individual; ) CODE §§ 1572, 1709 AND
JEREMY SHEAFFER, an individual; ) 1710] (INCLUDING
15
HEATHER SHEAFFER, an individual; ) DECLARATORY AND
16 and others similarly situated named herein as ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO
ROES 1 through 10,000, inclusive, ) VOID MORTGAGE);
17 ) 2. INTENTIONAL
Plaintiffs, ) MISREPRESENTATION
18 )
vs. ) [VIOLATION OF CAL. CIV.
19 ) CODE §§ 1572, 1709 AND
CITIBANK CORPORATION, a Delaware ) 1710] (INCLUDING
20 corporation; CITI RESIDENTIAL ) DECLARATORY AND
LENDING, a national banking association; ) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO
21 WESTERN NATIONAL APPRAISALS, a ) VOID MORTGAGE);
business entity; CALIFORNIA )
22
RECONVEYANCE COMPANY, a ) 3. NEGLIGENT
California corporation; CASAS & ) MISREPRESENTATION
23
HIPOTECAS, a California corporation; and ) [VIOLATION OF CAL. CIV.
24 DOES 1 through 1000, inclusive, ) CODE §§ 1572, 1709 AND
) 1710] (INCLUDING
25 Defendants ) DECLARATORY AND
) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO
26 )
) VOID MORTGAGE);
27 ) 4. VIOLATION OF CAL. CIVIL
) CODE § 2923.5;
28 ) 5. UNFAIR COMPETITION
) [VIOLATIONS OF CAL. BUS.
___________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
) & PROF. CODE § 17200 ET
1 ) SEQ.] (INCLUDING
) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO
2
)
) VOID MORTGAGE)
3 6. BREACH OF CONTRACT
)
4 )
) [JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]
5 )
)
6 )
)
7
8
/
9
/
10
/
11
/
12
/
13
/
14
/
15
/
16
/
17
/
18
/
19
/
20
/
21
/
22
/
23
/
24
/
25
/
26
/
27
/
28
/
___________________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs, and each of them, hereby demand a jury trial and allege as follows:
2
3 INTRODUCTION
4 1. This lawsuit arises from, among other things: (i) the deception in inducing
5 Plaintiffs to enter into loans and mortgages1 from approximately 2003 through 2007 and which
6 were acquired or are serviced by Defendants; (ii) the fraudulent and illegal use of MERS in
7 connection with those loans and mortgages; (iii) Defendants’ failure to perform their obligations
8 required pursuant to accepting TARP funds; (iv) Defendants’ breach of Plaintiffs’ statutorily
9 protected rights; (v) Defendants’ breach and willful violation of numerous consumer and
10 homeowner protection statutes, and willful violations of unfair business practices statues, by,
11 among other things, processing money from unknown sources, in contravention of the Patriot
12 Act; (vi) accepting money, transferring alleged assets and foreclosing upon alleged assets in
13 instances where the alleged assets do not exist, and which these Defendants have no right, title, or
14 interest upon which they can act; and (vii) Defendants’ continuing tortuous conduct intended to
15 deprive Plaintiffs of their rights and remedies for the foregoing acts, described below.
16 2. Defendants, among other things, violated laws, breached contracts, and repeatedly
17 and intentionally failed to honor its agreements with borrowers.
18 3. Moreover, Defendants, and each of them, wrongfuly acted and continue to act as if
19 they are either the owner, beneficiary, successor, assignee, servicer, or have some right, title, or
20 interest in Plaintiffs’notes, mortgages, or deeds of trust. In reality, the Defendants, and each of
21 them, are commiting and continuing a fraud, by utilizing and foreclosing upon assets that do not
22 exist.
23 4. This action seeks remedies for the foregoing improper activities, including a
24 massive fraud perpetrated upon Plaintiffs and other borrowers by the Defendants’ business that
25 devastated the values of their residences, in most cases resulting in Plaintiffs’ loss of all or
26 substantially all of their net worths.
27 1
This Complaint uses ―mortgage‖ and ―deed of trust‖ interchangeably. Depending upon the state
28 and other factors, a loan may be secured by either form of security instrument, the deed of trust
being the customary instrument in California.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
-1-
COMPLAINT
1 PARTIES
2 5. Plaintiff RICHARD WAGNER is an individual residing in the State of
3 California, who borrowed money from Defendants or its subsidiaries or affiliates between
4 January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2007, secured by a deed of trust on his California real
5 estate. At all times material hereto, Defendants has acted as Servicer or some other control
6 capacity over processing the loan.
7 6. Plaintiff MELISSA SISSON is an individual residing in the State of Deleware,
8 who borrowed money from Defendants or its subsidiaries or affiliates between January 1, 2003
9 and December 31, 2007, secured by a deed of trust on her real estate. At all times material
10 hereto, Defendants has acted as Servicer or some control capacity over processing the loan.
11 7. Plaintiff PEDRO NUNEZ SANTACRUZ is an individual residing in the State of
12 Colorado, who borrowed money from Defendants or its subsidiaries or affiliates between
13 January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2007, secured by a deed of trust on his real estate. At all
14 times material hereto, Defendants has acted as Servicer or some other control capacity over
15 processing the loan.
16 8. Plaintiff GABRIEL CASTANARES is an individual residing in the State of
17 California, who borrowed money from Defendants or its subsidiaries or affiliates between
18 January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2007, secured by a deed of trust on his California real
19 estate. At all times material hereto, Defendants has acted as Servicer or some other control
20 capacity over processing the loan.
21 9. Plaintiff STEPHEN HUPE is an individual residing in the State of Utah, who
22 borrowed money from Defendants or its subsidiaries or affiliates between January 1, 2003 and
23 December 31, 2007, secured by a deed of trust on his real estate. At all times material hereto,
24 Defendants has acted as Servicer or some other control capacity over processing the loan.
25 10. Plaintiff NATALYA HUPE is an individual residing in the State of Utah, who
27 December 31, 2007, secured by a deed of trust on her real estate. At all times material hereto,
_____________________________________________________________________________________
-2-
COMPLAINT
1 11. Plaintiff DAI VU is an individual residing in the State of Washington, who
3 December 31, 2007, secured by a deed of trust on his real estate. At all times material hereto,
5 12. Plaintiff ANNE PHAM is an individual residing in the State of Washington, who
7 December 31, 2007, secured by a deed of trust on her real estate. At all times material hereto,
9 13. Plaintiff STEPHEN VICTOR ZAMPAGA is an individual residing in the State
10 of Hawaii, who borrowed money from Defendants or its subsidiaries or affiliates between
11 January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2007, secured by a deed of trust on his real estate. At all
14 14. Plaintiff KARA ANN DUFFY is an individual residing in the State of Hawaii,
16 and December 31, 2007, secured by a deed of trust on her real estate. At all times material
17 hereto, Defendants has acted as Servicer or some other control capacity over processing the
18 loan.
19 15. Plaintiff JEREMY SHEAFFER is an individual residing in the State of Virginia,
21 and December 31, 2007, secured by a deed of trust on her California real estate. At all times
22 material hereto, Defendants has acted as Servicer or some other control capacity over
24 16. Plaintiff HEATHER SHEAFFER is an individual residing in the State of
25 Virginia, who borrowed money from Defendants or its subsidiaries or affiliates between
26 January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2007, secured by a deed of trust on her real estate. At all
_____________________________________________________________________________________
-3-
COMPLAINT
1 17. The other Plaintiffs, named as ROES 1 through 10,000, are similarly situated to
2 Plaintiffs identified above in that they too borrowed money from the Defendants (as defined
3 below) between the dates beginning on January 1, 2003 and ending on December 31, 2007,
4 secured by deeds of trust on their California realty. Further, at all times material hereto,
5 Defendants have acted as servicer or in another capacity with respect to loan processing. All of
6 the foregoing secured real estate loans made to Plaintiffs were wrongfully and fraudulently
7 handled and processed by Defendants, resulting in damages.
8 18. Plaintiffs’ counsel is aware of and has provided services to unnamed Roe
9 plaintiffs, each of whom has sustained actual injury. The unnamed Roes sue under their names
10 fictitiously because they either wish to maintain their privacy or because Plaintiffs’ counsel
11 have not completed the due diligence necessary to properly plead their claims as of the filing of
12 this Complaint. From time-to-time, upon conducting the due diligence and learning the
13 information sufficient to add remaining Roe Plaintiffs to this action, Plaintiffs shall seek leave
14 of Court to amend this Complaint to name these additional Roe Plaintiffs, or will follow such
15 other process as is prescribed by the Court.
16 19. An additional large number of persons has contacted counsel or their staffs
17 pertaining to the matters complained of herein. In the event Plaintiffs believe it is in
18 furtherance of judicial economy and justice to add all or any of these additional persons to this
19 Complaint, Plaintiffs shall bring a noticed motion to add such parties to this action. In the
20 event Plaintiffs file a separate lawsuit appertaining to all or any of these unnamed persons, or
21 such further number as may exist in view of future developments, Plaintiffs shall file all
22 appropriate Notices of Related Cases in accordance with California law, or as otherwise
23 directed by the Court.
24 20. Defendant CITIBANK CORPORATION (―CITI‖), a Delaware corporation, is,
25 among other things, a mortgage lender with its primary headquarters located in New York, New
26 York.
27 21. Defendant CITI RESIDENTIAL LENDING (―CRL‖) is a national banking
28 association. CITI and CRL are sometimes collectively referred to as the ―CITI Defendants.‖
_____________________________________________________________________________________
-4-
COMPLAINT
1 22. The Defendants’ mortgage lending business grew to the point where it had
2 become one of the largest savings association and one of the largest servicer of mortgages in
3 the Unites States. Growth was due largely to an aggressive growth strategy that was
4 relentlessly pursued. The business operated in all fifty States in the United States of America.
5 23. Defendant WESTERN NATIONAL APPRAISALS is a business entity, with its
6 principal place of business in the State of California, in the County of Los Angeles.
7 24. Defendant CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY is a business entity,
8 with its principal place of business in the State of California, in the County of Los Angeles.
9 25. Defendant CASAS & HIPOTECAS is a business entity operating in the State pf
10 California, County of Los Angeles.
11 26. At all times material hereto, the business of Defendants was operated through a
12 common plan and scheme designed to conceal the material facts set forth below from Plaintiffs,
13 from the California public and from regulators, either directly or as successors-in-interest to the
14 business acquired from others.
15 27. The concealment was completed, ratified and/or confirmed by each Defendant
16 herein directly or as a successor-in-interest as the acquirer of an entire business, and each
17 Defendant performed or has sought to benefit from the tortious acts set forth herein for its own
18 monetary gain and as a part of a common plan developed and carried out with the other
19 Defendants or as a successor-in-interest to the business that did the foregoing.
20 28. The true names and capacities of the Defendants listed herein as DOES 1
21 through 1,000 are unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious
22 names. Each of the DOE Defendants was the agent of each of the other Defendants herein,
23 named or unnamed, and thereby participated in all of the wrongdoing set forth herein.
24 29. On information and belief, each such Defendant is responsible for the acts,
25 events and concealment set forth herein and is sued for that reason. Upon learning the true
26 names and capacities of the DOE Defendants, Plaintiffs shall amend this Complaint
27 accordingly.
28 30. Plaintiffs believe and thereon allege that the agents and co-conspirators through
_____________________________________________________________________________________
-5-
COMPLAINT
1 which the named Defendants operated included, without limitation, financial institutions and
2 other firms that originated loans on behalf of the enterprise acquired by the CITI Defendants
3 and the CITI Defendants. These institutions acted at the behest and direction of the enterprise
4 and the CITI Defendants, or agreed to participate — knowingly or unknowingly - in the
5 fraudulent scheme described in this Complaint.
6 31. Those firms originating loans that knowingly participated in the scheme are
7 jointly and severally liable with the Defendants for their acts in devising, directing, knowingly
8 benefitting from and ratifying the wrongful acts of the knowing participants. Upon learning the
9 true name of such knowing participants, Plaintiffs shall amend this Complaint to identify such
10 knowing participants as Doe Defendants.
11 32. For avoidance of doubt, such knowing participants include, without limitation,
12 legal and natural persons owned in whole or in part by the enterprise or Defendants or affiliates
13 thereof legal and natural persons owning directly or through affiliates financial interests in the
14 enterprise or Defendants; legal and natural persons directly or through affiliates acting pursuant
15 to contracts to share in the benefits of the wrongdoing alleged in this Complaint and knowing
16 to at least some degree committing acts and omissions in support thereof; and legal and natural
17 persons knowing to at least some degree acting in concert with the enterprise or the
18 Defendants..
19 33. As to those legal and natural persons acting in concert without an express legal
20 relationship with Defendants or their affiliates, on information and belief, the Defendants
21 knowingly induced and encouraged the parallel acts, created circumstances permitting and
22 authorizing the parallel acts and omissions, benefited therefrom and ratified the improper
23 behavior, becoming jointly and severally liable therefor.
24 34. As to those legal an natural persons whose acts in support of the loan scheme
25 were unwitting, Plaintiffs will consider whether and on what basis such persons might be liable
26 for their acts; however, on information and belief, the Defendants knowingly induced and
27 encouraged the acts and omissions, created circumstances permitting and authorizing the
28 parallel acts and omissions, benefited therefrom and ratified the improper behavior, becoming
_____________________________________________________________________________________
-6-
COMPLAINT
1 liable therefor.
2 35. The Defendants’ mortgage lending business implemented a plan to ―pool‖ the
3 foregoing mortgages and sell the pools for inflated value. Rapidly, these two intertwined
4 schemes grew into a brazen plan to disregard underwriting standards and fraudulently inflate
5 property values – county-by-county, city-by-city, person-by-person – in order to take business
6 from legitimate mortgage-providers, and moved on to massive securities fraud hand-in-hand
7 with concealment from, and deception of, Plaintiffs and other mortgagees on an unprecedented
8 scale.
9 36. From as early as 2004, the senior management of Defendants’ mortgage lending
10 business knew the scheme would cause a liquidity crisis that would devastate Plaintiffs’ home
11 values and net worths. But, they didn’t care, because their plan was based on insider trading –
12 pumping for as long as they could and then dumping before the truth came out and Plaintiffs’
13 losses were locked in.
14 37. At the very least, at the time of entering into the notes and deeds of trust
15 referenced herein with respect to each Plaintiff, the Defendants’ business, each Defendant
16 originating or participating in the origination of a mortgage, each Defendant in the chain of title
17 of the foregoing mortgages and each Defendant servicing the foregoing mortgages and the
18 successors to each of the foregoing (collectively, the ―Defendants‖) was bound and obligated to
19 fully and accurately disclose to each borrower, including each Plaintiff herein, that the
20 mortgage being offered to the Plaintiff was, in fact, part of a massive fraud that Defendants or
21 their business principals knew would result in the loss of the equity invested by Plaintiff in
22 their homes and in severe impairment to Plaintiffs’ credit ratings.
23 38. It is now all too clear that this was the ultimate high-stakes fraudulent
24 investment scheme of the last decade. Couched in banking and securities jargon, the deceptive
25 gamble with consumers’ primary assets – their homes – was nothing more than a financial
26 fraud perpetrated by Defendants’ mortgage lending enterprise and others on a scale never
27 before seen. This scheme led directly to a mortgage meltdown in California that was
28 substantially worse than any economic problems facing the rest of the United States.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
-7-
COMPLAINT
1 39. From 2008 to the present, Californians’ home values decreased by considerably
2 more than most other areas in the United States as a direct and proximate result of the
3 Defendants’ enterprise scheme set forth herein. Defendants’ enterprise systematically
4 destroyed California home values county-by-county, then State-wide, and ultimately across the
5 entire Country.
6 40. The business premise of the enterprise the CITI Defendants’ acquired was to
7 leave the borrowers, including Plaintiffs, holding the bag once Defendants and their executives
8 had cashed in reaping huge salaries and bonuses and selling securities based on their inside
9 information, while investors were still buying the increasingly overpriced mortgage pools and
10 before the inevitable dénouement.
11 41. This massive fraudulent scheme was a disaster both foreseen by Defendants’
12 business and waiting to happen. The operators of Defendants’ business knew it, and yet still
13 induced the Plaintiffs into their scheme without telling them.
14 42. Almost to add further insult to injury, CITI, knowing of this massive fraud, like
15 Civil War carpetbaggers, sought to swoop in and profiteer from the carnage that had been
16 wreaked on Plaintiffs. The CITI Defendants sought to ignore the responsibility for the results
17 of the massive fraud in the mortgage assets and tainted business they were acquiring by
18 aggressively enforcing the mortgages purchased or serviced. The CITI Defendants did this
19 with calculation and deliberation after over nine months had elapsed from the failure of the
20 business and in full recognition of the patent frauds that had been perpetrated on Plaintiffs in
21 connection with the mortgages.
22 43. As a result of all of these actions of Defendants, Plaintiffs lost their equity in
23 their homes, their credit ratings and histories were damaged or destroyed, and Plaintiffs
24 incurred material other costs and expenses, described herein. At the same time, Defendants
25 took from Plaintiffs and other borrowers billions of dollars in interest payments and fees and
26 generated billions of dollars in profits by selling their loans at inflated values.
27 44. With government loss-protection in their hip pocket, the CITI Defendants, with a
28 voraciousness that has been chastised by numerous courts, sought to obliterate the last vestiges
_____________________________________________________________________________________
-8-
COMPLAINT
1 of value held by Plaintiffs, lock in government fill-up money and flip distressed assets for a
2 profit. On the heels of an already bad disaster, Defendants piled on after March 2009 to
3 systematically continue the destruction of California home values.
4 45. Defendants’ improper acts are numerous, including, inter alia: (i) issuing Notices
5 of Default in violation of Cal. Civil Code §2923.5; (ii) misrepresenting their intention to
6 arrange loan modifications for Plaintiffs, while in fact creating abusive roadblocks to deprive
7 Plaintiffs of their legal rights; and (iii) and by refusing to respond, in any way, to Plaintiffs’
8 communications.
9 46. These acts continue to this day with hardball tactics and deception that continue
10 to threaten Plaintiffs’ rights and financial security, as well as the economic future of the State of
11 California and the entire United States of America.
12 47. The carpetbagger business plan of the CITI Defendants is no mystery. It is
13 evident in their very formation to acquire the mortgage assets to which this action relates.
14 48. What the Defendants had hoped was that helpless homeowners would not be
15 able to stand up to the Defendants as they eviscerated the Plaintiffs’ life’s savings, chasing a
16 hoped-for gold rush of government bail-out money to make the Defendants rich in the process,
17 while at the same time positioning the Defendants as vultures to pick on the government-paid-
18 for carcass that would be left over.
19 49. Though they were careful not to reveal overtly the piranha-like nature of their
20 business plan, the Defendants’ formation for the sole purpose seeking to obtain an enormous
21 portfolio of tainted mortgages, enforce them as if they were not tainted, crush the homeowners
22 in the process to profit from government money, and then flipping the ―cleansed‖ portfolio is
23 patently evident. In this action, Plaintiffs seek to stop this behavior and obtain the redress they
24 are due.
25 50. The common facts herein include those facts set forth above in the prior sections
26 of this Complaint.
27 51. There has been considerable press attention, litigation and pending governmental
28 investigations establishing, among other things, that in many instances the Defendants herein
_____________________________________________________________________________________
-9-
COMPLAINT
1 do not have in their possession, custody or control the original or an authentic copy of the
2 promissory notes or other indicia of realty rights regarding Plaintiffs. Based thereon, on
3 information and belief, Plaintiffs hereby allege that Defendants have made demand for payment
4 on the Plaintiffs with respect to Plaintiffs’ properties at a time when Defendants are incapable
5 of establishing (and do not have any credible knowledge regarding) who owns the promissory
6 notes Defendants are purportedly servicing.
7 52. Many of the promissory notes referenced above are secured or controlled by a
8 beneficiary known as Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS). MERS is
9 sometimes named as the ―nominee‖ or ―beneficiary‖ for unknown lenders representing
10 unsourced money advanced by persons in violation of law. When a loan is transferred among
11 MERS members, MERS purports to simplify the process by avoiding the requirement to re-
12 record the liens and pay county recorder fees.
13 53. For the substantial majority of the Plaintiffs herein, MERS claims to be the
14 owner of the security interest indicated by the mortgages transferred by lenders, investors and
15 their loan servicers in the county land records. MERS claims its process eliminates the need to
16 file assignments in the county land records which lowers costs for lenders and consumers by
17 reducing county recording costs from real estate transfers and provides a central source of
18 information and tracking for mortgage loans.
19 54. Based upon published reports, including the MERS website as of the date of this
20 Complaint, on information and belief, MERS does not: (1) take applications for, underwrite or
21 negotiate mortgage loans; (2) make or originate mortgage loans to consumers; (3) extend credit
22 to consumers; (4) service mortgage loans; or (5) invest in mortgage loans.
23 55. MERS has been, and continues to be, used to facilitate the unlawful transfers of
24 mortgages, unlawful pooling of mortgages and the injection into the United States banking
25 industry of unsourced (i.e., unknown) funds, including, without limitation, improper off-shore
26 funds. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that MERS has been listed as
27 beneficial owner of more than half the mortgages in the United States.
28 56. In 2001, Congress found that ―money laundering, and the defects in financial
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 10 -
COMPLAINT
1 transparency on which money launderers rely, are critical to the financing of global terrorism
2 and the provision of funds for terrorist attacks.‖ Congress specifically found that ―money
3 launderers subvert legitimate financial mechanisms and banking relationships by using them as
4 protective covering for the movement of criminal proceeds and the financing of crime and
5 terrorism . . .‖
6 57. On information and belief, during periods relevant to the other acts complained
7 of herein, Defendants and each of them did not and persist in failing to (1) establish due
8 diligence policies, procedures and controls reasonably designed to detect and report instances
9 of money laundering, (2) establish procedures to take reasonable and practicable measures to
10 verify the identity of those applying for an account with the institution and maintain records of
11 the information used to verify a person’s identity, including name, address, and other
12 identifying information, (3) determine and report the sources of funds used for the mortgages
13 they originate and service, as well as the sources of funds used to acquire any mortgages, or (4)
14 disclose to Plaintiffs the identities, address and telephone numbers of transferees of their
15 mortgages.
16 58. Upon completion of suffcient discovery, Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend the
17 complaint to supplement the foregoing allegations with respect to additional violations
18 pertaining to the Plaintiffs and additional patterns supporting Plaintiffs’ claims herein including
19 its claim of Unfair Competition, infra.
20 59. Under California Civil Code § 1709 it is unlawful to willfully deceive another
21 ―with intent to induce him to alter his position to his injury or risk.‖
22 60. Under California Civil Code § 1710, it a ―deceit‖ to do any one or more of the
23 following: (1) the suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it
24 to be true; (2) the assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable
25 ground for believing it to be true; (3) the suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose
26 it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of
27 communication of that fact; or, (4) a promise, made without any intention of performing it.
28 61. Under California Civil Code § 1572, the party to a contract further engages in
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 11 -
COMPLAINT
1 fraud by committing ―any other act fitted to deceive.‖
2 At the time of entering into the notes and deeds of trust referenced herein with respect to each
3 Plaintiff, the enterprise acquired by the CITI Defendants, was bound and obligated to fully and
4 accurately disclose:
5 a. Who the true lender and mortgagee were.
6 b. That to induce a Plaintiff to enter into the mortgage, the enterprise caused the
7 appraised value of Plaintiff’s home to be overstated.
8 c. That to disguise the inflated value of Plaintiff’s home, the enterprise was
9 orchestrating the over-valuation of homes throughout Plaintiff’s community.
10 d. That to induce a Plaintiff to enter into a mortgage, the enterprise disregarded its
11 underwriting requirements, thereby causing Plaintiff to falsely believe that
12 Plaintiff was financially capable of performing Plaintiff’s obligations under the
13 mortgage, when the enterprise knew that was untrue.
14 e. That the enterprise not only had the right to securitize and sell Plaintiff’s
15 mortgage to third-party investors, but that it specifically planned and intended to
16 do so as to virtually all mortgages at highly-inflated and unsustainable values.
17 f. That as to the intended sales:
18 i. The sales would include sales to nominees who were not authorized
19 under law at the time to own a mortgage, including, among others,
20 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., a/k/a MERSCORP, Inc.
21 (―MERS‖), which according to its website was created by mortgage
22 banking industry participants to be only a front or nominee to
23 ―streamline‖ the mortgage re-sale and securitization process;
24 ii. Plaintiff’s true financial condition and the true value of Plaintiff’s home
25 and mortgage would not be disclosed to investors to whom the mortgage
26 would be sold;
27 iii. The enterprise intended to sell the mortgage together with other
28 mortgages as to which it also intended not to disclose the true financial
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 12 -
COMPLAINT
1 condition of the borrowers or the true value of their homes or mortgages;
2 iv. The consideration to be sought from investors would be greater than the
3 actual value of the said notes and deeds of trust; and
4 v. The consideration to be sought from investors would be greater than the
5 income stream that could be generated from the instruments even
6 assuming a 0% default rate thereon;
7 g. That the mortgage would thereby be used as part of a scheme by which the
8 enterprise would bilk investors by selling collateralized mortgage pools at an
9 inflated value.
10 h. That, at the time they did the foregoing, the enterprise knew the foregoing
11 would lead to a liquidity crisis and the likely collapse of the enterprise;
12 i. That the enterprise also knew the foregoing would lead to grave damage to each
13 Plaintiff’s property value and thereby result in the Plaintiff’s loss of the equity
14 Plaintiff invested in the Plaintiffs’ house, as well as damaging the Plaintiff’s
15 credit rating, thereby causing the Plaintiff additional severe financial damage;
16 and
17 62. That the enterprise knew at the time of making each loan, but did not disclose to
18 Plaintiffs, that entire communities would become ―ghost-town-foreclosure-communities‖ after
19 a domino effect of foreclosures hit them.
20 63. When property values started falling – just as the enterprise knew would occur –
21 the enterprise could no longer continue the pretense, concealment and affirmative
22 misrepresentations. Plaintiffs through their losses, and then also the ultimate banker, the U.S.
23 taxpayer, have footed the bill through TARP and other programs.
24 64. The CITI Defendants not only continue to ratify the scheme, but they
25 aggressively seek to profiteer from it.
26 65. With specific aim, CITI, knowing of the massive fraud perpetrated by the
27 enterprise they sought to acquire, swooped in to profiteer. Like Civil War carpetbaggers, the
28 CITI Defendants sought to conceal the fraud of which they were aware and which gave
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 13 -
COMPLAINT
1 legitimate defenses to borrowers and to ramrod through foreclosures. This was all done while
2 the CITI Defendants have put window dressing on their business strategy, seeking to obfuscate
3 their actions by press releases of diametrically opposite actions. This conspiracy has all been to
4 further crush values, realize losses and collect government bail-out money, and then to take
5 their foot off the neck of the California homeowner market and profiteer from rises in portfolio
6 asset values.
7 66. However, the CITI Defendants can not improve their position in the mortgages
8 and must stand in the shoes of their predecessor.
9 67. As a result, the CITI Defendants are subject to the shortcomings of the assets
10 they purchased, and not only those the CITI Defendants can control for their profit. They are
11 also subject to all defenses to the mortgages. The CITI Defendants’ high-pressure and
12 aggressive foreclosure tactics have been designed to push this fraud through and avoid these
13 defenses by sheer weight of a well-financed financial group against individual homeowners.
14 However, they must accept the burdens as well as the benefits of the mortgage assets contained
15 in the tainted business they acquired.
16 68. The CITI Defendants have hatched their scheme with calm deliberation,
17 including carefully investigating the assets they were acquiring, interviewing executives of the
18 enterprise, and forming their own vehicles to execute the plan. After over nine months had
19 elapsed from the failure of the enterprise, after the emergence of government bail-outs and
20 support, including privately negotiated help and TARP assistance, and in full recognition of the
21 patent frauds that had been perpetrated on Plaintiffs in connection with the mortgages, the CITI
22 Defendants stepped into those dirty shoes.
23 69. As a result of all of these actions of Defendants, Plaintiffs lost their equity in
24 their homes, their credit ratings and histories were damaged or destroyed, and Plaintiffs
25 incurred material other costs and expenses, described herein. At the same time, Defendants
26 took from Plaintiffs and other borrowers billions of dollars in interest payments and fees and
27 generated billions of dollars in profits by selling their loans at inflated values.
28 70. With government loss-protection in their hip pocket, the CITI Defendants, with a
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 14 -
COMPLAINT
1 voraciousness that has been chastised by numerous courts, have sought to obliterate the last
2 vestiges of value held by Plaintiffs, lock in government fill-up money and flip distressed assets
3 for a profit. On the heels of an already bad disaster, Defendants piled on after March 2009 to
4 systematically continue the destruction of California home values.
5 71. Defendants cannot aver that the market would have worked its way out of the
6 fraud, because they knew of the liquidity crisis and devastation that the fraud had already
7 created. Notwithstanding this knowledge, the CITI Defendants embarked on a massive
8 campaign to crush the values of homes to feed their profiteering scheme.
9 72. The CITI Defendants knew through their investigation that, in violation of their
10 own underwriting guidelines, the enterprise had covertly offered Plaintiffs and others loans at a
11 loan-to-value ratio that was unsustainable and without income verification. The CITI
12 Defendants knew that the enterprise knew this, but concealed from Plaintiffs that they knew,
13 Plaintiffs would soon be unable to afford the loans once introductory discount interest rates
14 ended, and variable interest and balloon payments kicked in. Indeed, the CITI Defendants saw
15 this fraud and the disjoint it had created in the market, and their ability to act fast and profiteer
16 from the U.S. taxpayer, as key to their own scheme.
17 73. The CITI Defendants knew that when interest payments increased and balloon
18 payments became due, if not before, Plaintiffs and others would begin defaulting on their
19 mortgages and would suffer grievous losses from mortgages for which they were not qualified.
20 Indeed, at the time of their acquisition of the tainted assets, this was going on. It was a pivotal
21 confluence of events that the CITI Defendants sought to exploit for gain. Given the inflated
22 appraised values of their residences, even without a decline in property values, few Plaintiffs
23 would be able to refinance or sell their homes without suffering a significant loss.
24 74. The Defendants knew that the scale of the lending – based on inflated property
25 values, without income verification and in violation of numerous underwriting guidelines –
26 would lead to widespread declines in property values, thereby putting Plaintiffs and others into
27 extremis through which they would lose the equity invested in their homes and have no means
28 of refinancing or selling, other than at a complete loss. That is precisely what happened to
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 15 -
COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs herein.
2 75. The enterprise did not just make misrepresentations and conceal material facts
3 from investors. First, each of the foregoing misrepresentations was made in public documents
4 or forums given wide communication to the public, including Plaintiffs herein. Second, the
5 identical affirmative misrepresentations and concealment pertained to the Plaintiffs, and other
6 borrowers.
7 76. The enterprise had perpetuated its lies by affirmative misrepresentations and by
8 concealing the truth from Plaintiffs and other borrowers because to do otherwise would mean:
9 (a) immediate wash-back into their investor fraud since Plaintiffs and other borrowers are part
10 of the investor public receiving all other investor communications, and (b) decapitation of the
11 source of the supply of mortgages needed for the scheme. The CITI Defendants knew this
12 when they acquired the tainted assets.
13 77. The concealment of the scheme from borrowers was absolutely essential because
14 the enterprise knew it would soon be delivering Plaintiffs’ notes and deeds of trust to investors
15 and their representatives at intentionally inflated values as collateral for Defendants’ fraudulent
16 securitized pools. The CITI Defendants knew this when they acquired the tainted assets.
17 78. By not disclosing the truth of the inflated appraisals, lax lending standards,
18 deficient loan portfolio, shaky secondary market collateralized securities, and overall scheme to
19 its borrowers, as set forth above, the enterprise not only made them unwitting accomplices, but
20 put them into a no win situation in which the price of taking a mortgage from the enterprise
21 would be – and has been – cascading defaults and foreclosures that have wiped out billions of
22 dollars in equity value, including the equity invested in their homes by Plaintiffs. The CITI
23 Defendants knew this when they acquired the tainted assets. The CITI Defendants exacerbated
24 this situation by setting off cascading foreclosures in entire cities and counties in California,
25 leading to unemployment and economic turmoil. All Plaintiffs have been damaged by the
26 foregoing.
27 79. Despite billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded relief programs, property values
28 continue to fall and unemployment and underemployment remain terribly high. However, this
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 16 -
COMPLAINT
1 is all key to the CITI Defendants’ profiteering scheme. The bigger the carnage now, the more
2 government relief they get, and the more upside that remains in the assets they have confiscated
3 from homeowners.
4 80. As defaults increased, the Defendants used it as an opportunity to increase their
5 fees and to punish Plaintiffs and other borrowers.
6 81. The enterprise first and later the CITI Defendants concealed and did not
7 accurately or fully disclose to any Plaintiff herein any of the foregoing facts. Further, neither
8 the enterprise nor Defendants disclosed or explained their schemes to Plaintiffs at any time.
9 They did the foregoing with the intent to deceive Plaintiffs, the investing public and the U.S.
10 taxpayer. Plaintiffs did not know the massive scheme the enterprise had started and that the
11 CITI Defendants diabolically enhanced and accelerated.
12 82. To the contrary, the enterprise affirmatively misrepresented its underwriting
13 processes, the value of its mortgages and the fundamental nature of its business model in its
14 press releases, annual report and securities filings, all of which were widely distributed to the
15 public, including Plaintiffs. The CITI Defendants knew this as they hatched their own new
16 chapter to the scheme. The enterprise intended the public, including Plaintiffs, to rely upon its
17 misrepresentations and made those misrepresentations to create false confidence in the
18 enterprise and to further its fraud on borrowers and investors. The CITI Defendants are now
19 playing on this same theme, but they are getting caught in their own creation.
20 83. Plaintiffs would never have done business with the enterprise or entered into the
21 mortgages if the scheme had been disclosed to them. Had the Plaintiffs known the facts
22 concealed from them, Plaintiffs would have never entered into bogus and predatory
23 transactions creating the tainted assets acquired by the CITI Defendants, designed only to line
24 the pockets of the lenders and their executives and not to actually and justifiably create value
25 and generate capital from the Plaintiffs’ equity investments in their primary residences, and
26 now designed to line the pockets of the CITI Defendants directly through their carpetbagging
27 and through their sucking at the TARP and other government money troughs.
28 84. If the Plaintiffs had later learned the truth, each Plaintiff would have either (a)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 17 -
COMPLAINT
1 rescinded the loan transaction under applicable law and/or (b) refinanced the loan
2 transaction with a reputable institution prior to the decline in mortgage values in late
3 2008. Instead, each Plaintiff reasonably relied on the deceptions of the enterprise in
4 originating their loans and forbearing from exercising their rights to rescind or refinance
5 their loans. The CITI Defendants knew of this massive fraud and step into all the
6 infirmities of these mortgages.
7 85. After entering into the transactions with each Plaintiff herein as alleged herein,
8 the enterprise sold in securities transactions the notes and deeds of trust pertaining to Plaintiffs’
9 properties. The sales:
10 a/ Included sales to nominees who were not authorized under law at the time to
11 own a mortgage, including, among others, MERS;
12 b. Involved misrepresentations by the enterprise to investors and concealment from
13 investors of Plaintiff’s true financial condition and the true value of Plaintiff’s home
14 and mortgage;
15 c. Involved misrepresentations by the enterprise to investors and concealment from
16 investors of the true financial condition of other borrowers and the true value of
17 their homes and mortgages also included in the pools;
18 d. Were for consideration greater than the actual value of the said notes and deeds
19 of trust;
20 e. Were for consideration greater than the income stream that could be generated
21 from the instruments even assuming a 0% default rate thereon; and
22 f. Were part of a scheme by which the enterprise bilked investors by selling
23 collateralized mortgage pools at an inflated value.
24 g. The CITI Defendants knew all of this when they acquired the tainted assets.
25 86. The enterprise hid from Plaintiffs that Defendants were engaged in an effort to
26 increase market share and sustain revenue generation through unprecedented expansions of its
27 underwriting guidelines, taking on ever-increasing credit risk.
28 87. The CITI Defendants knew all of this when they acquired the tainted assets, as it
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 18 -
COMPLAINT
1 was a critical component of their own scheme to further victimize the Plaintiffs.
2 88. When first the enterprise induced Plaintiffs to enter into mortgages, the
3 enterprise knew their scheme would lead to a liquidity crisis and grave damage to each
4 Plaintiff’s property value and thereby result in each Plaintiff’s loss of the equity such Plaintiff
5 invested in his house, as well as damaging the Plaintiff’s credit rating, thereby causing the
6 Plaintiff additional severe financial damage consisting of the foregoing damages and damages
7 described elsewhere in this Complaint. The enterprise concealed the foregoing from, among
8 others, Plaintiffs, California consumers and regulators. The CITI Defendants’ tainted assets
9 have all the imperfections resulting from these fraudulent actions, and the CITI Defendants
10 knew this when they embarked on their campaign to profiteer off of the mortgage carnage and
11 government bail-out money.
12 89. Based upon the enterprise’s position as a leading financial institution and the
13 public statements made by representatives of the enterprise, including in its securities filings,
14 the Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon the statements made by the foregoing and reasonably
15 relied that no material information necessary to their decisions would be withheld or
16 incompletely, inaccurately or otherwise improperly disclosed. In so relying, the Plaintiffs were
17 gravely damaged as described herein. The enterprise initially acted willfully with the intention
18 to conceal and deceive in order to benefit therefrom at the expense of the Plaintiffs. The CITI
19 Defendants thereafter acted deliberately in a massive scheme to crush the last vestiges of
20 wealth from the Plaintiffs, all in a mission to profiteer from the fraud the CITI Defendants had
21 purchased.
22 90. The other Defendants followed each other’s direction because they are either
23 subsidiaries of each other, directly or indirectly owned, controlled and dominated by each
24 other, or because they are in an unequal economic and/or legal relationship with each other by
25 which they are beholden to each other and are thereby controlled and dominated by each other.
26 91. As a proximate and foreseeable result of the sale of the notes and deeds of trust
27 regarding Plaintiffs’ properties and others similarly situated for more than the actual value of
28 such instruments, securitization pools lacked the cash flow necessary to maintain the
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 19 -
COMPLAINT
1 securitization pools in accordance with their indentures.
2 92. The unraveling of the fraudulent scheme has materially depressed the price of
3 real estate throughout California, and the entire Country, including the real estate owned by
4 Plaintiffs, resulting in the losses to Plaintiffs described herein. It is precisely this loss of value
5 on which the CITI Defendants now seek to capitalize. They would transfer a material portion
6 of that wealth to themselves or those in collusion with them. This scheme includes acquiring
7 the real property at reduced values, collecting U.S. government money for paper losses, and
8 harvesting the future increase on the value of these artificially depressed homes.
9 93. There has been considerable press attention and litigation in the United States
10 Bankruptcy Courts and state courts establishing, inter alia, that in many instances the
11 Defendants herein do not have in their possession the original or an authentic copy of the
12 promissory notes with respect to the loans they originated and/or purport to service. Based
13 thereon, based on other litigation of which counsel to Plaintiffs are aware, and based upon
14 Plaintiffs interactions with Defendants, on information and belief, Plaintiffs hereby allege that
15 Defendants have made demand for payment on the Plaintiffs with respect to Plaintiffs’
16 properties at a time when Defendants are incapable of establishing (and do not have any
17 credible knowledge regarding) who owns the promissory notes Defendants are purportedly
18 servicing.
19 94. MERS operates an electronic registry designed to track servicing rights and the
20 20 ownership of mortgages. MERS is sometimes named as the ―nominee‖ for lenders, and at
21 other times MERS is named as the ―beneficiary‖ of the deed of trust on behalf of unknown
22 persons. When a loan is transferred among MERS members, MERS purports to simplif,r the
23 process by avoiding the requirement to re-record liens and pay county recorder filing fees.
24 95. For the substantial majority of the Plaintiffs herein, MERS claims to be the
25 owner of the security interest indicated by the mortgages transferred by lenders, investors and
26 their loan servicers in the county land records. MERS claims its process eliminates the need to
27 file assignments in the county land records which lowers costs for lenders and consumers by
28 reducing county recording revenues from real estate transfers and provides a central source of
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 20 -
COMPLAINT
1 information and tracking for mortgage loans.
2 96. Based upon published reports, including the MERS website, on information and
3 belief, MERS does not: (1) take applications for, underwrite or negotiate mortgage loans; (2)
4 make or originate mortgage loans to consumers; (3) extend credit to consumers; (4) service
5 mortgage loans; or (5) invest in mortgage loans.
6 97. MERS has been used to facilitate the unlawful transfers of mortgages, unlawful
7 pooling of mortgages and the injection into the United States banking industry of un-sourced
8 (i.e., unknown) funds, including, without limitation, improper off-shore funds. Plaintiffs are
9 informed and thereon believe that MERS has been listed as beneficial owner of more than half
10 the mortgages in the United States.
11 98. In 2001, Congress found that ―money laundering, and the defects in financial
12 transparency on which money launderers rely, are critical to the financing of global terrorism
13 and the provision of funds for terrorist attacks.‖ Congress specifically found that ―money
14 launderers subvert legitimate financial mechanisms and banking relationships by using them as
15 protective covering for the movement of criminal proceeds and the financing of crime and
16 terrorism...‖
17 99. On information and belief, during periods relevant to the other acts complained
18 of in this Complaint, Defendants did not: (1) establish due diligence policies, procedures and
19 controls reasonably designed to detect and report instances of money laundering, (2) establish
20 procedures to take reasonable and practicable measures to verify the identity of those applying
21 for an account with the institution and maintain records of the information used to verify a
22 person’s identity, including name, address, and other identifying information, (3) determine and
23 report the sources of funds used for the mortgages they originate and service, as well as the
24 source of funds used to acquire any mortgages, or (4) disclose to Plaintiffs the identities,
25 address and telephone numbers of transferees of their mortgages.
26 100. At the same time, Defendants continue to issue notices of default in violation of
27 Cal. Civil Code § 2923.5 and despite assurances that the failures will be remedied, corrective
28 action is dilatory, at best.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 21 -
COMPLAINT
1
2 101. The foregoing is indicative of the Defendants’ bad acts. Those bad acts include,
3 but are not limited to:
4 a. The intentional efforts to frustrate Plaintiffs and other borrowers seeking
5 information about their mortgages and loan modifications.
6 b. Wanton violations of the laws regulating the sourcing of money in real
7 estate transactions.
8 c. Intentional violation of Cal. Civil Code § 2923.5 and dilatory steps to
9 remedy those failures, even when notified thereof.
10 102. By the foregoing acts, Defendants are intentionally making it difficult or
11 impossible for victims of Defendants’ massive mortgage fraud and statutory violations to
12 enforce their rights. This is all in furtherance of Defendants’ scheme to profit from the misery
13 of the Plaintiffs. In addition to the foregoing allegations, venue is proper in this County in
14 accordance with Section 395(a) of the California Code of Civil Procedure because, on
15 information and belief, some or all of the Defendants working in California to achieve the
16 unlawful and tortuous objectives set forth herein, reside in and/or do business in this County
17 and committed the torts and unlawful acts alleged herein in this County. This Court has
18 jurisdiction over this action under the California Constitution, Article V, Section 10, because
19 this case is not a cause given by statute to other trial courts. This Court has jurisdiction over
20 the defendants because a substantial portion of the wrongdoing alleged in this Complaint took
21 place in California, the Defendants are authorized to do business here, the Defendants have
22 sufficient minimum contacts with California and/or otherwise intentionally avail themselves of
23 the markets in California through the promotion, marketing, sale, maintenance . . . and now
24 wrongful exercise of real property rights and foreclosure rights – with respect to realty in
25 California, to render the exercise of jurisdiction by California courts permissible under
26 traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
27 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
28 (By All Plaintiffs – Fraudulent Concealment – Against the CITI Defendants)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 22 -
COMPLAINT
1 103. Paragraphs 1 through 102 are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully
2 set forth herein.
3 104. The enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants had exclusive knowledge not
4 accessible to Plaintiffs of material facts pertaining to its mortgage lending activities that it did
5 not disclose to Plaintiffs at the time it was entering into contracts with Plaintiffs. As more fully
6 alleged herein, these facts included false appraisals, violation of underwriting guidelines, the
7 intent to sell Plaintiffs’ mortgages above their actual values to bilk investors and knowledge
8 that the scheme would result in a liquidity crisis that would gravely damage Plaintiffs.
9 105. Further, in connection with entering into contracts with Plaintiffs, the enterprise
10 purchased by the CITI Defendants made partial (though materially misleading) statements and
11 other disclosures as to their prominence and underwriting standards in the public releases, on
12 their web site, in their literature and at their branch offices. However, the enterprise purchased
13 by the CITI Defendants suppressed material facts relating thereto as set forth above. The
14 enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants knew that the mortgages would be ―pooled,‖ and
15 ―securitized sale.‖
16 106. The enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants also knew that within a
17 foreseeable period, its investors would discover that the enterprise’s mortgagors could not
18 afford their loans and the result would be foreclosures and economic devastation. It was the
19 movie The Sting in real life, with real lives and with people whose homes were often times
20 their only asset.
21 107. The enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants was more dependent than
22 many of their competitors on selling loans it originated into the secondary mortgage market, an
23 important fact it disclosed to investors. The enterprise expected that the deteriorating quality of
24 the loans that the enterprise was writing, and the poor performance over time of those loans,
25 would ultimately curtail the enterprise’s ability to sell those loans in the secondary mortgage
26 market.
27 108. The enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants misled borrowers, potential
28 borrowers and investors by failing to disclose substantial negative information regarding the
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 23 -
COMPLAINT
1 enterprise’s loan products, including:
2 a. The increasingly lax underwriting guidelines used by the enterprise in
3 originating loans;
4 b. The enterprise’s pursuit of a ―matching strategy‖ in which it matched the
5 terms of any loan being offered in the market, even loans offered by primarily
6 subprime originators;
7 c. The high percentage of loans it originated that were outside its own
8 already widened underwriting guidelines due to loans made as exceptions to
9 guidelines;
10 d. The enterprise’s definition of ―prime‖ loans included loans made to
11 borrowers with FICO scores well below any industry standard definition of
12 prime credit quality;
13 e. The high percentage of the enterprise’s subprime originations that had a
14 loan to value ratio of 100%; and
15 f. The enterprise’s subprime loans had significant additional risk factors,
16 beyond the subprime credit history of the borrower, associated with increased
17 default rates, including reduced documentation, stated income, piggyback
18 second liens, and LTVs in excess of 95%.
19 109. The enterprise knew this negative information from numerous reports they
20 regularly received and from emails and presentations prepared by the enterprise’s chief credit
21 risk officer. The enterprise nevertheless hid this negative information from the public,
22 including Plaintiffs.
23 110. Plaintiffs did not know the concealed facts.
24 111. The enterprise intended to deceive Plaintiffs. As described herein, that deception
25 was essential to their overall plan to bilk investors, trade on inside information and otherwise
26 pump the value of the enterprise’s stock.
27 112. The enterprise was one of the nation’s leading providers of mortgages. It was
28 highly regarded and by dint of its campaign of deception through securities filings, press
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 24 -
COMPLAINT
1 releases, web site and branch offices, the enterprise had acquired a reputation for performance
2 and quality underwriting.
3 113. As a result, Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon the deception of the enterprise.
4 114. As a proximate result of the foregoing concealment by the enterprise, California
5 property values have precipitously declined and continue to decline, gravely damaging
6 Plaintiffs by materially reducing the value of their primary residences, depriving them of access
7 to equity lines, second mortgages and other financings previously available based upon
8 ownership of a primary residence in California, in numerous instances leading to payments in
9 excess of the value of their properties, thereby resulting in payments with no consideration and
10 often subjecting them to reduced credit scores (increasing credit card and other borrowing
11 costs) and reduced credit availability.
12 115. In fact, property values across the United States of America precipitously
13 declined prior to the CITI Defendants acquiring the tainted mortgage assets and the property
14 values continue to decline, gravely damaging Plaintiffs by materially reducing the value of
15 their primary residences, depriving them of access to equity lines, second mortgages and other
16 financings previously available based upon ownership of their primary residences, in numerous
17 instances leading to payments in excess of the value of their properties, thereby resulting in
18 payments with no consideration and often subjecting them to reduced credit scores (increasing
19 credit card and other borrowing costs) and reduced credit availability
20 116. The CITI Defendants acquired the mortgages or rights related thereto with
21 knowledge of the fraudulent operations of the enterprise.
22 117. The CITI Defendants can have no more rights in the mortgage assets than their
23 predecessors.
24 118. Without limiting the damages as described elsewhere in this Complaint,
25 Plaintiffs damages arising from this Cause of Action also include loss of equity in their houses,
26 costs and expenses related to protecting themselves, reduced credit scores, unavailability of
27 credit, increased costs of credit, reduced availability of goods and services tied to credit ratings,
28 increased costs of those services, as well as fees and costs, including, without limitation,
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 25 -
COMPLAINT
1 attorneys’ fees and costs.
2 119. To this day, the CITI Defendants profess willingness to modify Plaintiffs’ loans
3 in accordance with law, but nonetheless they persist to this day in their secret plan to deprive
4 Plaintiffs of their rights.
5 120. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ damages herein are exacerbated by a
6 continuing decline in residential property values and further erosion of their credit records.
7 121. First the enterprise’s concealments as to the pervasive mortgage fraud, and then
8 the CITI Defendants’ concealments, both as to the their scheme to profiteer from the mortgage
9 melt-down and as to their purported efforts to resolve loan modifications with Plaintiffs, are
10 substantial factors in causing the harm to Plaintiffs described in this Complaint.
11 122. Defendants acted outrageously and persistently with actual malice in performing
12 the acts alleged herein and continue to do so. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary
13 and punitive damages in a sum according to proof and to such other relief as is set forth below
14 in the section captioned Prayer for Relief which is by this reference incorporated herein.
15 123. With respect to all damages, exemplary damages, costs and attorneys fees
16 Plaintiffs seek in this cause of action, each Plaintiff seeks a sum and has been damaged in a
17 sum not exceeding $70,000 per each Plaintiff.
18 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
19 (By All Plaintiffs –Intentional Misrepresentation – Against the CITI Defendants)
21 set forth herein.
22 125. From 2005 through 2007, the enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants
23 misled the public, including Plaintiffs, by falsely assuring them that the enterprise was
24 primarily a prime quality mortgage lender which had avoided the excesses of its competitors.
25 As described herein with specific examples, affirmative misrepresentations and material
26 omissions permeated the enterprise’s website, customer and investor materials, required
27 securities filings and presentations.
28 126. The enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants underwent unprecedented
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 26 -
COMPLAINT
1 expansion by, among other things, aggressively making loans which were unsupported by
2 documents, pushed through impotent loan committees, and taken by unworthy borrowers who
3 were destined to be unable to repay the loans at the time the loans were made.
4 127. The enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants never disclosed or explained
5 their aggressive business model which was built on making these loans which were destined to
6 become non-performing assets.
7 128. The enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants never made any disclosures in
8 its Forms 10-Q or 10-K for 2005, 2006, or 2007 about the unprecedented expansion of its
9 underwriting guidelines. Instead, the enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants made public
10 statements from 2005 through 2007 that were intended to mislead Plaintiffs about the
11 increasingly aggressive underwriting at the enterprise and the financial consequences of those
12 widened underwriting guidelines.
13 129. Nothing disclosed or provided by the enterprise purchased by the CITI
14 Defendants informed Plaintiffs that the enterprise included in its prime category loans with
15 FICO scores below 620. Nor did the enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants inform
16 Plaintiffs that the ―prime non-conforming‖ category included loan products with increasing
17 amounts of credit risk, such as (1) reduced and/or no documentation loans; (2) stated income
18 loans; or (3) loans with loan to value or combined loan to value ratios of 95% and higher.
19 Finally, the enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants did not disclose that enterprise’s
20 riskiest loan product, the Pay-Option ARM, was classified as a ―prime loan.‖
21 130. The enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants made affirmative misleading
22 public statements in addition to those in the periodic filings that were designed to falsely
23 reassure Plaintiffs about the nature and quality of the enterprise’s underwriting.
24 131. Specifically, the enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants repeatedly
25 emphasized the enterprise’s underwriting quality in public statements from 2005 through 2007.
26 132. The growing network of branches, loan offices, and outside originators
27 (―Network‖) feeding the enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants participated in making
28 the loans and knowingly and intentionally assisted in drafting the false and misleading
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 27 -
COMPLAINT
1 statements delivered to the public, including Plaintiffs herein.
2 133. The foregoing misrepresentations were made with the intention that Plaintiffs
3 rely thereon. It was important to the enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants that
4 Plaintiffs rely on its misrepresentations so that Plaintiffs would come to a false understanding
5 as to the nature of the enterprise. The foregoing misrepresentations were specifically intended
6 to convince Plaintiffs to take mortgages from the enterprise.
7 134. The campaign of misinformation succeeded. Plaintiffs relied upon the
8 misrepresentations and entered into mortgages with the enterprise purchased by the CITI
9 Defendants.
10 135. By reason of the prominence of the enterprise purchased by the CITI
11 Defendants, the campaign of deception as to its business plans and the relationship of trust
12 developed between the enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants and Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs
13 were justified in relying upon the enterprise’s representations.
14 136. The aforementioned Network supporting the enterprise purchased by the CITI
15 Defendants and other representatives of the enterprise cooperated with each other to plan and
16 implement the scheme described herein.
17 137. The Network participated in developing the misrepresentations to borrowers,
18 including Plaintiffs herein and to investors. They shared in the financial benefits of the scheme
19 and ratified and approved of the material steps therefore taken by the other Defendants.
20 Conversely, the Defendants other than the CITI Defendants approved of, ratified and shared in
21 the fees and other revenue received by the Network arising from its participation in the scheme.
22 The CITI Defendants in 2009 approved of, ratified and are now seeking to profit from this
23 same scheme through the acquisition at a discount of tainted mortgages that it is seeking to
24 enforce as if they were not tainted.
25 138. As a result of relying upon the foregoing misrepresentations, each Plaintiff
26 entered into a mortgage contract with the enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants.
27 139. In fact, the appraisals were inflated. The enterprise purchased by the CITI
28 Defendants did not utilize quality underwriting processes. The enterprise’s financial condition
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 28 -
COMPLAINT
1 was not sound, but was a house of cards ready to collapse, as the enterprise well knew, but
2 Plaintiffs did not.
3 140. Further, Plaintiffs’ mortgages were not refinanced with fixed rate mortgages and
4 neither the enterprise nor any of the Defendants ever intended that they would be.
5 141. As a result of the scheme described herein, Plaintiffs could not afford the
6 mortgages when the variable rate features and/or balloon payments kicked in.
7 142. Further, as a result of the scheme, Plaintiffs could not refinance or sell their
8 residence without suffering a loss of their equity investments.
9 143. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs have lost all or a substantial portion of the
10 equity invested in their houses and suffered reduced credit ratings and increased borrowing
11 costs, among other damages described herein.
12 144. The CITI Defendants seek to enforce the mortgages irrespective of this massive
13 fraud.
17 predecessors.
18 147. Plaintiffs’ reliance on the misrepresentations of the enterprise purchased by the
19 CITI Defendants, appraisers and the other Defendants, all ratified by the Defendants, was a
20 substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm.
21 148. The CITI Defendants represented to multiple Plaintiffs that they would be
22 assisted by the CITI Defendants in a loan modification. As described herein, that
23 representation was false. Defendants knew that representation was false when they made it.
24 149. Because of new laws pertaining to loan modifications and the CITI Defendants’
25 insistence that they had a genuine interest in complying therewith and in keeping borrowers in
26 their homes, Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the representations.
27 150. By delaying Plaintiffs from pursuing their rights and by increasing Plaintiffs’
28 costs and the continuing erosion of each Plaintiff’s credit rating, each Plaintiff’s reliance
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 29 -
COMPLAINT
1 harmed that Plaintiff, further eroding values in furtherance of the CITI Defendants’ scheme.
3 Plaintiffs damages arising from the matters complained of in this Cause of Action also include
4 loss of equity in their houses, costs and expenses related to protecting themselves, reduced
5 credit scores, unavailability of credit, increased costs of credit, reduced availability of goods
6 and services tied to credit ratings, increased costs of those services, as well as fees and costs,
7 including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and costs.
8 152. Plaintiffs’ reliance on the representations made by the enterprise purchased by
9 the CITI Defendants and then by the CITI Defendants was a substantial factor in causing
10 Plaintiffs’ harm.
11 153. Plaintiffs are entitled to such relief as is set forth in this Cause of Action and
12 such further relief as is set forth below in the section captioned Prayer for Relief which is by
13 this reference is incorporated herein as though fully set forth at length. Inclusive of all
14 damages, exemplary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees recoverable hereunder, each Plaintiff
15 has been damaged in a sum according to proof not to exceed $75,000 per each Plaintiff.
16 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
17 (By All Plaintiffs – Negligent Misrepresentation – Against All CITI Defendants)
19 set forth herein.
20 155. Although the enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants and other members
21 of the Network may have reasonably believed some or all of the representations they made,
22 described in this Complaint, were true, none of them had reasonable grounds for believing such
23 representations to be true at the time: (a) the representations were instructed to be made, as to
24 those Defendants instructing others to make representations, or (b) at the time the
25 representations were made, as to those Defendants making representations and those
26 Defendants instructing others to make the representations, or (c) at the time the representations
27 were otherwise ratified by the Defendants.
28 156. Such representations, fully set forth in the First and Second Causes of Action
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 30 -
COMPLAINT
1 and previous sections of this Complaint, were not true.
2 157. The enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants, including the Defendants
3 making representations, intended that Plaintiffs rely upon those misrepresentations.
4 158. As described herein, Plaintiffs reasonably relied on those representations.
5 159. By reason of the prominence of the enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants
6 and the campaign of deception as to its business plans and the relationship of trust developed
7 between the enterprise and Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs were justified in relying upon the enterprise’s
8 and Defendants’ representations.
9 160. As a result of relying upon the foregoing misrepresentations, each Plaintiff
10 entered into a mortgage contract with the enterprise purchased by the CITI Defendants.
11 161. As a result of scheme described herein, Plaintiffs could not afford his or her
12 mortgage when its variable rate features and/or balloon payments kicked in.
13 162. Further, as a result of the Defendants continuing scheme, Plaintiffs could not
14 refinance or sell his or her residence without suffering a loss of Plaintiff’s equity.
15 163. The CITI Defendants seek to enforce the mortgages irrespective of this massive
16 fraud.
20 predecessors.
22 Plaintiffs damages as a result of the foregoing also include loss of equity in their houses, costs
23 and expenses related to protecting themselves, reduced credit scores, unavailability of credit,
24 increased costs of credit, reduced availability of goods and services tied to credit ratings,
25 increased costs of those services, as well as fees and costs, including, without limitation,
26 attorneys’ fees and costs.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 31 -
COMPLAINT
1 this reference incorporated herein.
2
3 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

4 (Injunctive Relief for Violation of Cal. Civil Code § 2923.5 – By Plaintiffs – Against All
5 CITI Defendants)
6 168. Paragraphs 1 through 167 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth
7 herein.
8 169. Pursuant to California Civil Code, § 2923.5, the Defendants – and each of them
9 – are prohibited by statute from recording a Notice of Default against the primary residential
10 property of any Californian without first making contact with that person as required under §
11 2923.5 and then interacting with that person in the manner set forth in detail under § 2923.5.
12 An exception to this rule of law exists in the event the Defendants are unable with due
13 diligence to contact the property owner.
14 170. Pursuant to laws and ordinances in jurisdictions other than California, which
15 laws or ordinances are similar to California Civil Code, § 2923.5, whereby certain protections
16 are afforded homeowner borrowers, the Defendants – and each of them – are prohibited by
17 statute from recording a Notice of Default and/or proceeding to institute or initiate foreclosure
18 proceedings against the primary residential property of any homeowner without first making
19 contact with that person as required, and then interacting with that person in the manner set
20 forth in the specific statute or ordinance.
21 171. With respect to all Plaintiffs in this cause of action, the realty that is the subject
22 hereof was and is their primary residential dwelling.
23 172. The Defendants, and each of them, caused Notices of Default to be recorded
24 against the primary residential properties of the California Plaintiffs named in this cause of
25 action absent compliance with California Civil Code, § 2923.5.
26 173. Included in the noncompliance, Defendants, and each of them, caused
27 declarations to be recorded in the public records that were – each of them – false. This act also
28 violates § 2923.5 and other California laws precluding the filing of false statements.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 32 -
COMPLAINT
1 174. The Defendants, and each of them, caused Notices of Default to be recorded
2 and/or initiated foreclosure proceedings against the primary residential properties of the Non-
3 California Plaintiffs named in this cause of action absent compliance with State specific laws,
4 statutes, or ordinances. Included in the noncompliance, Defendants, and each of them, caused
5 declarations to be recorded in the public records that were – each of them – false. This act also
6 violates other laws precluding the filing of false statements.
9 this reference is incorporated herein as though fully set forth at length.
10 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
11 (By All Plaintiffs – Unfair Competition – Against All CITI Defendants)
13 herein.
14 177. Defendants’ actions in implementing, perpetrating and then extending their
15 fraudulent scheme of inducing Plaintiffs to accept mortgages for which they were not qualified
16 based on inflated property valuations and undisclosed disregard of their own underwriting
17 standards and the sale of overpriced collateralized mortgage pools, all the while knowing that
18 the plan would crash and burn, taking the Plaintiffs down and costing them the equity in their
19 homes and other damages, violates numerous federal and state statutes and common law
20 protections enacted for consumer protection, privacy, trade disclosure, and fair trade and
21 commerce.
22 178. The enterprise first perpetrated this fraudulent scheme of selling off overpriced
23 loans by making willful and inaccurate credit disclosures regarding borrowers, including
24 Plaintiffs, to third parties. This false credit disclosure was critical to the success of Defendants’
25 continued sales of the massive pools of mortgage loans necessary to perpetuate the scheme.
26 179. The CITI Defendants extended this fraud in connection with their scheme to
27 acquire these assets at deflated values, knowing the fraud that had been committed, but with the
28 specific intent to seek to attempt to enforce the mortgages as sound and legitimate instruments.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 33 -
COMPLAINT
1 180. The enterprise was first aware that if the true credit profiles of the borrowers and
2 the values of their real estate were accurately disclosed, the massive fraudulent scheme would
3 end. As a result, the enterprise repeated, reinforced and embellished their false disclosures.
4 181. The CITI Defendants were aware of the fraudulent scheme that had been
5 perpetrated by the enterprise whose assets and operations it was acquiring.
6 182. The enterprise knew the borrowers’ credit was inadequate to support continued
7 loan payments, absent unsustainable inflation of property values. These pervasive false credit
8 disclosures to third parties (including purchasers of bundled mortgage pools created by the
9 Defendants) constituted false credit reports in violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
10 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq. and these pervasive false disclosures permitted the Defendants to
11 continue their scheme and victimize the Plaintiffs.
12 183. These pervasive false disclosures also caused the bubble to burst. Once it
13 became known that some of the information provided by the enterprise was false, the market
14 for the sale of bundled loans dried up. Notwithstanding their knowledge of the fraudulent
15 nature of the assets they were seeking to enforce, the CITI Defendants began to issue
16 foreclosure notices, property values continued to drop, and then, under the weight of deflation
17 in a market that requires inflation, the equity investments made by Plaintiffs and others in their
18 homes was lost. . . . and then Plaintiffs were lost in the greatest economic recession since the
19 1930s.
20 184. The foregoing violations were in furtherance of the fraud perpetrated on
21 Plaintiffs. In fact, the enterprise could not have told the truth in their public filings without that
22 truth becoming known to Plaintiffs.
23 185. Conversely, the false filings gave additional credence and support to omissions,
24 concealment, promises and inducements.
25 186. The CITI Defendants knew of all of these violations of law in acquiring the
26 tainted assets and operations and then in seeking to enforce these mortgage obligations, when
27 the CITI Defendants knew of these meritorious defenses.
28 187. The forgoing fraudulent concealment, material misstatements, and the
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 34 -
COMPLAINT
1 intentional violations of state and federal statutes cited herein constitute unlawful, unfair and
2 fraudulent business acts or practices and so constitute unfair business practices within the
3 meaning of the California Unfair Practices Act. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17500.
4 Sections 17200 et seq. of the California Business & Professions Code provides, in the
5 disjunctive, for liability in the event of any such ―unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or
6 practice.‖
7 188. The actions described herein are unfair and patently fraudulent in that they were
8 conducted for the specific purposes of first perpetuating an unlawful and unsustainable
9 investment scheme and then perpetrating a fraudulent foreclosure and confiscatory scheme.
10 189. As a result of the actions, concealment and deceit described herein, each of the
11 Plaintiffs has suffered material financial injury in fact, including as described elsewhere in this
12 Complaint, loss of equity in their houses, costs and expenses related to protecting themselves,
13 reduced credit scores, unavailability of credit, increased costs of credit, reduced availability of
14 goods and services tied to credit ratings, increased costs of those services, as well as fees and
15 costs, including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and costs.
16 190. As a further result of the actions, concealment and deceit described herein, each
17 of the Plaintiffs has lost money or property as a result of such unfair competition.
18 191. California Civil Code § 2923.5 requires that each mortgagee, trustee,
19 beneficiary, or authorized agent may not file a notice of default pursuant to California Civil
20 Code § 2924 until 30 days after initial contact is made as required therein, or 30 days after
21 satisfying the due diligence requirements to contact the mortgage described therein.
22 192. Defendants violated the foregoing law by causing a notice of default to be filed
23 against Plaintiffs without the mandatory notice. Defendants did not diligently endeavor to
24 contact the Plaintiffs as required by § 2923.5(g) and Defendants thereby also violated
25 California Civil Code §§ 2923.5 and 2924.
26 193. As a result of the foregoing unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs suffered further injury
27 in fact by the filing of notices of default and as such the Plaintiffs suffered monetary and
28 property loss. Such injuries and loss included diminished credit scores with a concomitant
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 35 -
COMPLAINT
1 increase in borrowing costs and diminished access to credit, fees and costs, including, without
2 limitation, attorneys’ fees and costs with respect to wrongful notices of default and loss of some
3 or all of the benefits appurtenant to the ownership and possession of real property.
4 194. The foregoing unlawful activities were pervasive and violate Business and
5 Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.
6 195. As a result of Defendants’ unfair competition, Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution
7 for all sums received by Defendants with respect to Defendants’ unlawful and/or unfair and/or
8 fraudulent conduct, including, without limitation, interest payments made by Plaintiffs, fees
9 paid to Defendants, including, without limitation, the excessive fees paid at Defendants’
10 direction, premiums received upon selling the mortgages at an inflated value and moneys
11 received from government agencies for ―losses‖ incurred by Defendants.
12 196. Plaintiffs are also entitled to the issuance of a temporary restraining order, a
13 preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction restraining and enjoining Defendants from
14 any further concealment with respect to the sale of notes and mortgages, any further violation
15 of § 2923.5, any further violation of law, and any further exercise of purported legal rights with
16 respect to Plaintiffs’ real estate.
17 197. Each of the enterprise whose assets CITI purchased has an affirmative burden to
18 ascertain verify and prove, among other things, the identity, source, character, origin, and
19 legitimacy of the funds which they controlled, handled, and/or facilitated in its transactions.
20 198. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and hereon allege that none of the enterprise
21 whose assets CITI purchased or can comply with the strict rules imposed by the laws regarding
22 money sourcing, that both the enterprise whose assets CITI purchased and the CITI Defendants
23 have acted in direct violation of law, and that the CITI Defendants must forfeit any and all
24 claims, liens, encumbrances, debts, or obligations from others in accordance with the California
25 Business and Professions Code.
28 this reference incorporated herein as though fully set forth at length.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 36 -
COMPLAINT
1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (By All Plaintiffs – Breach of Contract – Against All CITI Defendants)
3
5 herein.
6 201. Defendants’ acceptance of TARP money created an obligation to modify loans
7 outstanding on Plaintiffs’ real estate to the extent Defendants were pronouncing rights thereto,
8 to assist borrowers, and to otherwise use the TARP funds for the benefit of, among others, the
9 Plaintiffs herein.
10 202. In fact, the Plaintiffs are intended third party beneficiaries of the contracts
11 between ther United States Government, certain intermediaries and the Defendants.
12 203. Defendants, and each of them, breached their contractual obligations to Plaintiffs
13 as set forth herein. Defendants further breached the contractual obligations owing to each
14 Plaintiff in the manners alleged hereinabove.
15 204. As a proximate and foreseeable result of said breaches of contract, Plaintiffs
16 have been damaged in a sum according to proof, which – inclusive of all damages, costs, and
17 attorneys’ fees – is equal to or less than $70,000 for each Plaintiff herein.
20 this reference incorporated herein as though fully set forth at length.
21 PRAYER FOR RELIEF
22 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants and each of
23 them as follows:
24 1. General and special damages according to proof under the First, Second, Third
25 and Sixth Causes of Action, in the sums set forth hereinabove;
26 2. Declaratory relief voiding the notes and mortgages of Plaintiffs held or serviced
27 by the Defendants and temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive relief under the First,
28 Second, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Causes of Action.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 37 -
COMPLAINT
1 3. Statutory relief according to proof under the Fifth Cause of Action;
2 4. Restitution according to proof under the Fifth Cause of Action;
3 5. Temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctive forfeiture relief under all
4 causes of action;
5 6. On all causes of action, for costs of suit herein;
6 7. On all causes of action, for pre- and post-judgment interest;
7 8. On all causes of action for which attorney’s fees may be awarded pursuant to the
8 governing contract, by statute or otherwise, reasonable attorneys fees; and
9 9. On all causes of action, for such other and further relied as this Court may deem
10 just and proper so that each Plaintiff shall recover no more than $70,000 in restitutionary or
11 compensatory damages and so that each Plaintiff shall receive a judicial determination that the
12 mortgage lien alleged to exist against their particular property is null and void ab initio.
13
KRAMER & KASLOW
14
15
16 Dated: December __, 2010 By:__________________________

Philip A. Kramer
17 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
_____________________________________________________________________________________
- 38 -
COMPLAINT

Citi Joinder

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Citi Joinder

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1 Philip A.

Kramer SBN # 113969

5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

3 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

16 Dated: December , 2010 By:________________________

Potrebbero piacerti anche