1

Ronald M. Ramos
Eunice C. Ramos
601 Sunrise Trail Place
Chula Vista, CA 91914

3
4

Pro per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SAN DIEGO COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

RONALD M. RAMOS,
EUNICE C. RAMOS,
Plaintiffs,

:
:
:
:

CIVIL CASE NO.

:
:
U.S. BANK,
: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES,
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST : DECLARATORY AND INJUCTIVE
COMPANY, TAMMIE S. DENSON,
: RELIEF
(VERIFIED)
DOWNEY SAVINGS AND LOAN
:
ASSOCIATION, F.A,
: (1)TILA VIOLATIONS
NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING
: (2)NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
CORPORATION,
: (4)RESCISSION
LISA ROGERS,
: (5)FRAUD
NICHOLE ALFORD,
: (6)UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
: (7)QUIET TITLE
____Defendants.: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
vs.

17
18
19
20

RONALD D LEMMER JR,

10049 Eubank Lane

Spring Valley, CA 91977
[email protected]

21
22

Pro se
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SAN DIEGO COUNTY - CIVIL DIVISION

23
24
25

RONALD D LEMMER JR,

Plaintiffs,

26
27
28

vs.
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
AMERICAS WHOLESALE LENDER,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO.
37-2012-00065981-CU-FR-EC
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

1
_________________________________________________
Motion to Consolidate

1
2
3
4
5
6

LANDSAFE TITLE CORPORATION,

:
STACEY KERSHBERG,
:
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTR- :
ATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
:
GARY NORD,
:
KEVIN RUDOPLH,
:
ELISAVET MEZA,
:
RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.,
:
JOSELYN CASILLAS ,
:
____Defendants.:

Summary of the Case

8
9

Plaintiff filed his complaint to quiet title on March 03,

10

2012. However, for reasons unknown the Court refused to authorize

11

the filing of Lis Pendens and Plaintiffs property was sold to a

12

third party on April 23, 2012; further complicating the issues

13

before this Court.

14
15
16

On April 30, 2012, an Unlawful detainer action was filed by

the new owner against Plaintiff to remove him from his home.
On May 04, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Demurrer to the Unlawful

17

Detainer action challenging the jurisdiction of the Limited Court

18

and setting forth valid defenses raised in Plaintiffs Complaint

19

to Quiet Title that would be unavailable in the Limited

20

Jurisdiction court. The hearing on the Demurrer was scheduled for

21

May 23, 2012.

22

On May 22, 2012, Plaintiff called the Clerk of Court and

23

requested a continuance stating that they were out of town and

24

the Attorney they hired, Jorge Pena, was unavailable for the

25

scheduled date. The Clerk instructed Plaintiff to prepare a

26

Declaration stating that they were out of town and fax it to the

27

Court at 619 456-4100. [See attached copy, Exhibit A]

28
2
_________________________________________________
Motion to Consolidate

On May 23, 2012, at approximately 11:00 a.m. a friend of

1
2

Plaintiff spoke with Clerk of Court, Joan Sturgeon, and ask if

the Court received the Declaration and if the case had been

postponed. Said Clerk acknowledged receipt of the Declaration and

stated that there was no hearing on calendar for Plaintiff at

1:30 p.m. that afternoon.

Contrary to the aforesaid information the hearing was held

7
8

at 1:30 p.m. and the Demurrer was overruled in absentia.

On May 23, 2012, Judge Bernard E. Revak, issued an

10

Order overruling said Demurrer and mandating an Answer to be

11

filed within 5 days.

12

Plaintiff has defenses that are available in the

13

Unlimited Jurisdiction Court that are not available in the

14

Limited Jurisdiction Court which denies Plaintiff due process of

15

law by both California and United States Constitutions.

A LIMITED CASE IS NOT THE CORRECT VENUE
WHERE AS HERE, THE DAMAGES EXCEED THE
JURISDICTIONAL LIMITS OF THE COURT

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Plaintiff

is

seeking

monetary

damages

arising

from

the

fraudulent foreclosure of his personal residence valued in excess

of $520,000. Additionally, plaintiff is seeking punitive damages
for fraud, as against all defendants for filing false documents
in

the

Official

Records

of

San

Diego

County.

The

Defendants

failed to abide by the requirements of Cal. Civ. Code Section

25

2932.5 which provides in Black Letter law a requirement of an

26

assignee of a Trust Deed and Note, 2932-5 creates a mandatory

27

condition precedent to initiating the foreclosure, an assignee,

28

MUST ACKNOWLEDGE AND RECORD THE ASSIGNMENT PRIOR TO COMMENCING

3
_________________________________________________
Motion to Consolidate

THE PROCEDURE LEADING TO THE FORECLOSURE. Cal. Civ. Code Section

2932.5 states:
2932.5: Where a power to sell real property is given to a
mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended
to secure the payment of money, the power is part of the security
and vests in any person who by assignment becomes entitled to
payment of the money secured by the instrument.
The power of
sale may be exercised by the assignee if the assignment is duly
acknowledged and recorded.
(Emphasis added)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

In the case before the court defendants failed to record a

valid assignment prior to commencing the foreclosure and thereby
the sale was taken by Fraud. The true Note holder [assumed for
this argument] was identified in the corporation assignment of
deed of trust recorded on May 02, 2011, which means that all
antecedent substitutions are notwithstanding. Surely, the fact
that the named Defendants admit that the Note had been sold and

16

split from the Deed of trust raises questions of fact and law

17

ipso facto.

18

The Fourth District Court of Appeal stated in Asuncion v.

19

Superior Court of the City of San Diego (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d

20

141, 144, 166 Cal.Rptr. 306, 308, in pertinent part: Stated

21

It is generally recognized the summary unlawful detainer

22

action is not a suitable vehicle to try complicated ownership

23

issues involving assertions of fraud and deceptive practices such

24

as the Asuncions allege here.

25

In the Instant matter Plaintiffs entered into a loan agreement with

26

Americas Wholesale Lender on

27

would seem that said Note was sold and transferred by April 1,

28

or about February 16, 2007. However, it

2007, which was the cut-off date for inducting mortgage notes
4
_________________________________________________
Motion to Consolidate

into the Mortgage Backed Security Trust. At that point in time

MERS no longer was a nominee or beneficiary with the power to

substitute a trustee. This power was solely vested in the Trustee

Wells

Fargo

Bank.

According

to

the

Pooling

and

Agreement of said Trust Wells Fargo Bank was mandated

Servicing
to appoint

6
7
8
9
10
11

a Trustee for foreclosing. Unfortunately, Wells Fargo Bank failed

to make a valid substitution of Trustee for foreclosing.
The

record

foreclosed

on

clearly

Plaintiffs

shows

that

property

the

without

named
a

Defendants

valid

recorded

substitution as required by Cal. Civ. Code Section 2932.5, in

12
13
14

addition

to

fraud

actually

committed

by

the

Trustee

who

alleged on the Notice of Default:

That by reason thereof of the present
Beneficiary under such deed of Trust has
executed and delivered to said duly appointed
Trustee a written Declaration of Default and
Demand for Sale and has deposited with said
duly appointed Trustee such Deed of Trust and
all documents evidencing obligations secured
thereby and has declared and does hereby
declared all sums secured thereby immediately
due and payable and has elected and does
hereby elect to cause the trust property to
be sold to satisfy the obligations served
thereby.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

the

NO documents were provided to the trustee that evidenced the

24
25

ownership of the Deed of Trust and Note in the Name of Wells

26

Fargo Bank N.A., as Trustee for the Mortgage Backed Security

27

Trust,

28

interloper Trustee which showed the endorsements on the note to

in

short

there

was

No

original

Note

provided

5
_________________________________________________
Motion to Consolidate

to

the

defendants.

NONE

of

these

defendants,

including

Americas

Wholesale

Lender,

beginning to take a second look at Parties in particular with a

view

Company, N.A., have bluffed their way through the foreclosure

because under Cal. Civ. Code Sec 2924 the parties foreclosing on

a Note and Trust Deed are not required to prove to anyone that

they have a right to foreclose.

own

to

the

loan

Fraud.

and

courts

Americas

all

Wholesale

across

the

Lender

and

Country

are

Recontrust

This has allowed a flurry of

10

fraudulent

11

accomplished by deception, as none of these defendants had the

12

Note

13

Company, N.A., nor did any of them have an endorsement to them

14

for that Note and did not pay any consideration for that note.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

foreclosures

including,

to

Americas

occur.

Wholesale

This

foreclosure

Lender

and

was

Recontrust

"Fraud" and "dishonesty" are closely synonymous, and "fraud"

may consist in misrepresentation or concealment of material facts
or statement of fact made with the consciousness of its falsity.
Fort

v.

Board

of

Medical

Quality

Assurance

of

State

of

Cal.

(1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 12, 185 Cal. Rptr. 836.

The law is well settled that 'representations made to one
person with intention that they will be repeated to another and
acted upon by him and which are repeated and acted upon to his
injury gives the person so acting the same right to relief as if

25

the representations had been made to him directly. . . No reason

26

appears

27

nondisclosures as well as misrepresentations. Massei v. Lettunich

28

(1967) 56 Cal. Rptr. 232, 235.

why

this

same

rule

should

not

be

6
_________________________________________________
Motion to Consolidate

applicable

to

A duty of disclosure in a fraud context is one which may

1
2

exist

when

one

party

to

transaction

has

sole

knowledge

or

access to material facts and knows that such facts are not known

to or reasonably discoverable by the other party.

Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 134 Cal. Rptr. 375.

Goodman v.

A duty to disclose arises, even in absence of a fiduciary or

confidential relationship, if material facts are known only to

defendant and defendant knows that plaintiff does not know or

cannot

10

reasonably

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

undisclosed

facts.

Karoutas

v.

HomeFed Bank (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 767, 283 Cal. Rptr. 809.

11
12

discover

In

Asuncion

supra.,

the

Fourth

District

Court

of

Appeal further stated in pertinent part at page 146: As we see

it, after the eviction is transferred to the superior court, a
number of procedural devices exist to facilitate accommodating
the eviction action with the fraud action which the Asuncions
separately

filed.

possibility,

which

we

understand

is

frequently utilized in other counties, is for the superior court

to stay the eviction proceedings until trial of the fraud action,

20

based on the authority of Code of Civil Procedure section 526

21

which permits a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo

22

on

23

actions, or unconscionable relative hardship.

24

the Asuncions are entitled to defend this eviction action based

25

on

26

asserted,

27

jurisdiction of the municipal court and cannot be tried there.

such

the

grounds

claims
and

as

of

irreparable

fraud

accordingly

and
the

injury,

related
action

multiplicity

causes

of

legal

. We hold only,

which

necessarily

28
7
_________________________________________________
Motion to Consolidate

they

exceeds

have
the

In

the

Asuncion

matter,

supra,

the

Asuncions

in

1971

obtained a purchase money mortgage on the property of $19,800

with monthly payments of $149.

trust deed on an obligation of $3,500, with payments of $64.84,

they missed two payments on the second trust deed in June and

6
7
8
9

July 1979.

In 1978 they executed a second

The beneficiary of the second trust deed filed a

notice of default to commence foreclosure on July 12.

representatives

of

Financial

contacted

the

On July 19

Asuncions.

The

Asuncions signed papers on that date which they were told were

10
11
12
13
14

necessary to prevent foreclosure on their home.

The legal effect

of those papers was, among other things, to grant title to the

property to Financial, subject to a 45-day option to reacquire
the

property

by

executing

in

Financial's

favor

$12,000

15

promissory note at 18 percent "or more" payable in three years.

16

Financial in return, promised to retire a furniture company debt

17

in the sum of $1,126.36 and to pay the second trust deed of

18

approximately

19

immediately after its execution on July 19.

20

it commenced the unlawful detainer action alleging expiration of

21

the option on September 3, 1979, resulting in ownership of the

22

property in Financial.

23
24
25
26
27

$3,500.

Financial

recorded

the

grant

deed

On October 15, 1979,

The net effect of the parties' dealings is, Financial has

loaned the Asuncions about $4,800 for 45 days, in return for real
property having an equity in excess of $20,000.

Plaintiff

alleged that such a loan may be usurious, as well as fraudulent

and in violation of a number of laws, both state and federal.

28
8
_________________________________________________
Motion to Consolidate

The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limits

of the Municipal Court, now the limited court, of $25,000, in

that Plaintiff is seeking recovery of damages exceeding $25,000,

and the imposition of punitive damages in a substantially greater

amount.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

California Code of Civil Procedure section 86 provides in

pertinent part as follows:
(a) The following civil cases and proceedings are
limited civil cases:
(1) Cases at law in which the demand, exclusive of
interest, or the value of the property in controversy
amounts to twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or
less.
(4) Proceedings in forcible entry or forcible or
unlawful detainer where the whole amount of damages
claimed is twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or
less.
(5) Actions to enforce and foreclose liens on
personal property where the amount of the liens is
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less.

16
17

Thus,

the

Limited

Court

lacks

subject

matter

18

jurisdiction, where as here, the amount is controversy exceeds

19

$25,000, to wit, $520,000 in quantifiable compensatory damages.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

California Code of Civil Procedure 85 provides:

An action or special proceeding shall be treated as a
limited civil case if all of the following conditions
are satisfied, and, notwithstanding any statute that
classifies an action or special proceeding as a limited
civil case, an action or special proceeding shall not
be treated as a limited civil case unless all of the
following conditions are satisfied: (a) The amount in
controversy
does
not
exceed
twenty-five
thousand
dollars ($25,000). As used in this section, "amount in
controversy" means the amount of the demand, or the
recovery sought, or the value of the property, or the
amount of the lien, that is in controversy in the
action, exclusive of attorneys' fees, interest, and
costs. (b) The relief sought is a type that may be
9
_________________________________________________
Motion to Consolidate

granted in a limited civil case. (c) The relief sought,

whether in the complaint, a cross-complaint, or
otherwise, is exclusively of a type described in one or
more statutes that classify an action or special
proceeding as a limited civil case or that provide that
an action or special proceeding is within the original
jurisdiction of the municipal court. Thus any action
which is based on the same facts and issues whether as
a Claim or counterclaim would require the Limited Court
of to transfer Jurisdiction and for the unlimited court
to assume Jurisdiction.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

A court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine a case

where

type

jurisdiction

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

proceeding

defined

for

constitutional provision.

or
that

amount

in

controversy

particular

court

by

is

beyond

statute

or

Workmen's Compensation Appeals Bd. v.

Small Claims Court of Alameda County

(1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 643,

111 Cal. Rptr. 6.

Therefore,

15
16

of

the

Municipal

Court

is

devoid

of

jurisdiction to continue and the matter must be transferred to

the Superior Court.
PLAINTIFF FILED AN ANSWER TO THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
CHALLENGING THE SUFFICIENCY OF TITLE
Plaintiff filed an answer in the Unlawful Detainer action,
and a complaint in the Superior Court which wholly challenged the
lawfulness of Defendant's claim to title in the unlawful detainer
complaint

and

the

procedures

utilized

in

the

non-judicial

foreclosure action.
It would appear that the Defendants have failed to properly

26

address

the

issue.

Once

the

validity

of

the

27

challenged with a prima facie cause of action reliance upon the

28

duly perfected title transfer is insufficient.

10
_________________________________________________
Motion to Consolidate

Assignment

is

The resolution of ownership of real property with a

1
2

value

Limited Jurisdiction Court.

of

$520,000.00

6
7

9
10
11
12

not

within

the

jurisdiction

of

the

THE LIMITED COURT LACKS JURISDICTION TO

RENDER A JUDGMENT AS TO THE LAWFULNESS
OF CLAIMS TO TITLE BY DEFENDANT

is

Defendant

contends

that

if

the

Limited

Court

lacks

jurisdiction given the amount in controversy, that is, the sum

over

$25,000

plus

punitive

damages,

then

the

court

lacks

jurisdiction over any issues therein.

As set forth in the Asuncion matter, supra, the traditional
approach in these cases, is given the allegations of fraud being

13
14
15
16
17

made by Defendant, to transfer the matter to Superior Court and

for the higher court to impose a stay of the unlawful detainer
action

pending

resolution

of

the

fraud

issues.

Lacking

jurisdiction over the present issues by virtue of the amount in

18

controversy, the Limited court must and should order the instant

19

matter to be transferred to Superior Court.

20
21

CONCLUSION

22
23

Based

upon

24

memorandum

25

requests that the Court grant the motion and Consolidate the

26

Limited case, San Diego East County Division, Civil case no.37-

27

2012-00034315-CL-UD-EC with the case sub judice.

of

the
points

pleadings
and

filed

authorities

in

this

matter

Plaintiffs

28
11
_________________________________________________
Motion to Consolidate

and

the

respectfully

Date: December 8, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

2
3

_____________________________
Ronald Lemmer

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

RONALD D LEMMER JR,

10049 Eubank Lane

Spring Valley, CA 91977
[email protected]
Pro se
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SAN DIEGO COUNTY - CIVIL DIVISION
RONALD D LEMMER JR,

CASE NO.

12
_________________________________________________
Motion to Consolidate

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Plaintiffs,

:
:
:
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
:
AMERICAS WHOLESALE LENDER,
:
LANDSAFE TITLE CORPORATION,
:
STACEY KERSHBERG,
:
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTR- :
ATION SYSTEMS, INC.,
:
GARY NORD,
:
KEVIN RUDOPLH,
:
ELISAVET MEZA,
:
RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.,
:
JOSELYN CASILLAS ,
:
____Defendants.:

37-2012-00065981-CU-FR-EC

vs.

PROOF OF SERVICE

10
11

The undersigned is not a party to the aforesaid action, is

12

over eighteen, and does hereby swear that a true and correct copy

13

of the
NOTICE OF MOTION, MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE, W/MEMO OF
POINTS & AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT

14
15

Has been cause to be served, by way of first class mail, upon the

16

party[ies] listed hereunder:

Christina Rothschild, Esquire
3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1500
Irvine, CA 92612-4414

17
18
19
20

DATE: June 4

21
22

______________________________

23
24
25
26
27
28
13
_________________________________________________
Motion to Consolidate