Source: https://www.fraudstoppers.org/rainn-gauna-v-jp-morgan-chase-bank/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 05:01:58+00:00

Document:
Rainn Gauna sued JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association (JPMorgan Chase), Chase Home Finance, LLC (Chase Home Finance), California Reconveyance Corporation (CRC) and Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee of Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-1 (Deutsche Bank) after her property was sold at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer to all causes of action in a first amended complaint without leave to amend.
Gauna now contends the trial court erred in (1) taking judicial notice of hearsay and disputed facts, (2) ruling that her fraud and deceit cause of action is time-barred, (3) concluding that the first amended complaint does not state a cause of action for breach of contract and that her breach of contract claim is time-barred, (4) ruling that she lacked standing to challenge the assignment of the deed of trust and that tender is required to state a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure, (5) sustaining the demurrer to her causes of action for cancellation of instruments, slander of title and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., (6) denying her leave to amend, and (7) hearing defendants’ demurrer before her discovery motions.
We will reverse the judgment as to the wrongful foreclosure cause of action, a portion of the cancellation of instruments cause of action, and a portion of the slander of title cause of action. Based on the well-pleaded allegations in the first amended complaint, which we must accept as true at this stage of the lawsuit, JPMorgan Chase could not assign the deed of trust because it did not have an interest in the note and deed of trust. In all other respects we will affirm the judgment.
Pursuant to a note secured by a deed of trust, Gauna promised to pay Long Beach Mortgage Company (LBMC) $168,800 plus interest. LBMC’s loan to Gauna was not funded by LBMC, it was funded by investors who bought certificates to the Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-1 (LBM Trust).
Gauna signed a deed of trust in relation to real property located in Nevada County (the property). The deed of trust identified Gauna as the borrower and LBMC as the lender and trustee. It secured to LBMC repayment of the note. Through the deed of trust, Gauna irrevocably granted to LBMC the property, in trust, with power of sale. The deed of trust provided that the note and deed of trust could be sold without prior notice to Gauna. It further provided that the lender may appoint a successor trustee who shall succeed to all title, powers and duties of the original trustee.
Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu) was the original servicer on the loan. It became the successor in interest to LBMC’s assets when LBMC closed its operations. However, Gauna’s note and deed of trust were sold before LBMC closed and WaMu did not acquire Gauna’s note as part of LBMC’s assets. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) took over WaMu’s operations in 2008. JPMorgan Chase bought certain assets of WaMu from the FDIC, but it did not buy any interest in Gauna’s note.
A process to modify Gauna’s loan was started in August 2008. Gauna did not miss a payment on her loan until March 2009, when a JPMorgan Chase branch representative was unable to process her monthly payment. A JPMorgan Chase branch representative also could not process Gauna’s April 2009 payment.
On or about May 1, 2009, Gauna received a Trial Period Plan (TPP) offer which outlined the steps she should take to obtain a loan modification, including making three monthly payments of $1,034. The cover letter for the offer was from WaMu which purportedly was “becoming Chase.” The offer identified JPMorgan Chase as the lender. The offer promised to modify Gauna’s adjustable interest rate loan if Gauna timely made TPP payments and if she qualified under the federal Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP). Gauna accepted the TPP offer. She made TPP payments in May, June and July 2009.
At some point, Chase Home Finance serviced Gauna’s loan. A Chase Home Finance representative instructed Gauna to continue making TPP payments until she received a loan modification agreement. Gauna made TPP payments during the period August 2009 through January 2010. In January 2010, Gauna was instructed to stop making further payments until a loan modification agreement was executed. She attempted to make payments in February and March 2010, but those payments were refused.
Gauna received a loan modification agreement on March 18, 2010, with instructions to sign and return the agreement within seven days. The agreement did not account for $10,340 in TPP payments Gauna had made. It increased the principal balance on Gauna’s loan from $168,800 to $172,063.08. It contained undefined terms and terms Gauna opposed.
Chase Home Finance refused to execute the loan modification agreement. It required Gauna to go through the modification process again. And it instructed Gauna to stop making payments to requalify for a loan modification. After making her April, May and June 2010 payments, Gauna did not make a July 2010 payment upon the instruction of a JPMorgan Chase representative. She sent her completed loan modification application to JPMorgan Chase. And she made a modified loan payment in August 2010.
In December 2010, CRC recorded an assignment of the deed of trust in Nevada County. The assignment said JPMorgan Chase assigned to Deutsche Bank, as trustee of the LBM Trust, Gauna’s note and deed of trust. The LBM Trust was closed at the time of the assignment.
CRC also recorded a substitution of trustee. The person who signed the substitution purportedly signed it as an officer of JPMorgan Chase, as attorney in fact for Deutsche Bank, in its capacity as trustee of the LBM Trust. The document said Deutsche Bank substituted CRC as the trustee of Gauna’s deed of trust.
CRC also executed and recorded a notice of default stating that Gauna was in default by $23,358.34 as of December 22, 2010. CRC then executed a notice of trustee’s sale which was recorded in Nevada County.
Gauna filed a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code about a month later. The bankruptcy action was dismissed.
Almost 11 months after the termination of the bankruptcy action, CRC recorded another notice of trustee’s sale. CRC recorded three more notices of trustee’s sale in 2013. It ultimately conducted a trustee’s sale in September 2013. And it recorded a trustee’s deed upon sale, transferring all of its right, title and interest in the property to Deutsche Bank, as trustee of the LBM Trust.
Five days later, Gauna filed a complaint against JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance, CRC and Deutsche Bank. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer in part with leave to amend and in part without leave to amend.
Gauna filed a first amended complaint, alleging fraud and deceit, breach of contract, cancellation of instruments, wrongful foreclosure, slander of title, violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., and conversion. Defendants also demurred to that pleading. The trial court sustained the demurrer to all causes of action without leave to amend. It denied Gauna’s motion for reconsideration and dismissed the action. Because Gauna’s appellate opening brief does not address the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer to the conversion cause of action, we will not address the propriety of a demurrer as to that cause of action.
Gauna next contends the trial court erred in ruling that her fraud and deceit cause of action is time-barred.
While Gauna addresses the statute of limitations ground for the trial court’s ruling, she does not address the other grounds upon which the trial court sustained the demurrer on the fraud cause of action. The trial court correctly determined that the first amended complaint fails to state a cause of action for fraud because the pleading falls short of the specificity needed to state a claim for fraud and fails to allege specific facts showing all the elements of fraud. Accordingly, we need not address whether the fraud cause of action is time-barred.
Gauna alleges fraud with regard to the loan origination, the modification of the loan, the notice of default, and the assignment of the deed of trust.
As to the loan origination, Gauna alleges wrongful acts by LBMC. The trial court found the allegations lacked the requisite specificity, and we agree. For example, regarding the allegation that LBMC changed the interest rate for Gauna’s loan from fixed to adjustable, there is no allegation that a specified individual made a specified misrepresentation on a specified date. But there is also another deficiency. Gauna fails to allege facts showing how Chase Home Finance, Deutsche Bank and CRC can be liable for the alleged fraudulent acts by LBMC, which is not a defendant in this action.
Turning to the loan modification, the first amended complaint alleges the lender and Chase Home Finance represented that if Gauna entered into the TPP and complied with its terms, Chase Home Finance and the lender would modify her loan. It alleges Gauna justifiably relied on that representation and made modified payments, but Chase Home Finance and the lender refused to execute the modification agreement and instead demanded that Gauna resubmit her financial information and make another set of TPP payments. Chase Home Finance and the lender then rejected Gauna’s TPP payments, declared a default and foreclosed on the property. Gauna says she lost the property as a result of defendants’ fraud.
“ ‘[T]erms proposed in an offer must be met exactly, precisely and unequivocally for its acceptance to result in the formation of a binding contract [citations].” (Panagotacos v. Bank of America (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 851, 855-856; see Civ. Code § 1585.) An acceptance which, as here, contains additions or limitations is a rejection of the offer and amounts to a counteroffer. (Panagotacos, at pp. 855-856; Ajax Holding Co. v. Heinsbergen (1944) 64 Cal.App.2d 665, 669-670.) A counteroffer containing a condition not in the original offer, if not accepted by the original offeror, does not result in a contract. (Ajax Holding, at pp. 669-670.) Gauna cites no authority requiring an original offeror to accept a counteroffer.
Guzman v. Visalia Community Bank (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1370, a case Gauna’s counsel cited during oral argument, is not on point. That decision held that general contract principles did not apply in determining whether a Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offer was rejected. (Id. at p. 1377.) But this case does not involve an offer to compromise made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998.
Regarding the notice of default, the first amended complaint alleged the notice represented that Gauna was in default by $23,358.34 as of December 22, 2010, but the representation was false because it did not account for $13,442 in TPP payments and it included improper charges. Gauna alleged Chase Home Finance and the lender caused the notice of default to be recorded even though they knew it was false. She claimed the false representation prevented her from clearing the arrears and she lost the property as a result.
The first amended complaint does not allege facts showing a causal relationship between Gauna’s alleged injury and the allegedly inflated amount stated in the notice of default. In particular, Gauna does not allege facts showing that she took or did not take some action because of the misstatement in the notice of default. (Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 982, 1008 (Orcilla); Hamilton v. Greenwich Investors XXVI, LLC (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1602, 1615 (Hamilton); Glaski v. Bank of America (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1079, 1091.) Her general allegation that she relied on the false representations by defendants is conclusory and insufficient to plead fraud. (Glaski, at p. 1091.) While she alleged she could have cleared the arrears, the first amended complaint indicated Gauna did not make other payments, and she stated in her appellate opening brief that she last made a payment on the note in August 2010 and she was $13,442 in arrears. She does not say she could have paid the arrears not caused by defendants’ alleged refusal to accept her payments. Without a loan modification, Gauna was still obligated to make the payments due under her note. (Lueras, supra, 221 Cal.App.4th at p. 79) The TPP Agreement expressly provided that the lender’s acceptance of a payment during the TPP period did not constitute a cure of Gauna’s default under the loan documents unless such payments were sufficient to completely cure her entire default under the loan documents. It also stated that the terms of the loan documents remained in full force and effect and the TPP did not release the obligations contained in the loan documents.
As for the assignment of the deed of trust, the first amended complaint alleged Colleen Irby falsely represented in the assignment that she was an officer of JPMorgan Chase, thereby obscuring the identity of the lender and preventing Gauna from resolving the servicing improprieties, which resulted in the loss of the property. But those allegations are not specific enough. They do not allege what action Gauna took or did not take in reliance on Irby’s alleged misrepresentation (Orcilla, supra, 244 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1007-1008; Hamilton, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 1615), and they do not specify exactly how she lost her property because of Irby’s alleged false representation. Gauna was in arrears and the first amended complaint does not allege that she was able to bring her loan current.
Gauna further argues the first amended complaint states a cause of action for breach of contract.
Turning to the TPP agreement, the first amended complaint alleged Chase Home Finance and the lender breached that agreement by refusing to execute the loan modification and by failing to provide Gauna with a fair and reasonable modification agreement.
However, the first amended complaint alleges that Gauna received a Home Affordable Modification Agreement (loan modification agreement). The facts alleged do not, therefore, demonstrate a breach of contract. Gauna did not unequivocally accept the terms of the loan modification agreement. She does not state a cause of action for breach of contract based merely on the argument that defendants were required to accept her counteroffer.
The first amended complaint also claims defendants breached the TPP agreement by failing to offer a fair and reasonable loan modification agreement. We agree with Gauna that a lender’s duty to offer a loan modification pursuant to a TPP includes a duty to offer a good faith permanent loan modification. (Bushell, supra, 220 Cal.App.4th at pp. 925-928; West, supra, 214 Cal.App.4th at pp. 796-799; Wigod, supra, 673 F.3d at p. 565.) But Gauna argues the loan modification agreement was not in good faith because it was a contract of adhesion presented to her on a “take it or leave it” basis, it inexplicably increased her principal balance by $3,200, it included a balloon payment of $38,513.47, and it had vague terms that were prejudicial to her.
The loan modification agreement stated that the modified principal balance on the note would include all past due amounts, including unpaid and deferred interest, fees, escrow advances and other costs (but not unpaid late charges), less any amounts paid to the lender but not previously credited to Gauna’s loan. The cover letter to the TPP similarly advised Gauna that past due amounts, including unpaid interest, taxes, insurance and assessments paid on Gauna’s behalf to a third party, would be added to the principal loan balance. According to the first amended complaint, no monthly loan payments were made on Gauna’s loan for two months in 2009 and for at least four months in 2010. On this record, an approximately $3,200 increase in the principal loan balance was not without explanation and was not substantively unconscionable.
The first amended complaint fails to state a cause of action for breach of contract against JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance and Deutsche Bank. Accordingly, we need not address whether any such cause of action is time-barred.
Gauna claims the trial court erred in ruling that she lacked standing to challenge the assignment of the deed of trust, and that tender was required to state a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure.
After the trial court ruled that Gauna lacked standing to challenge the assignment of the deed of trust, the California Supreme Court held in Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th 919, that a borrower of a home loan secured by a deed of trust who has been subjected to a nonjudicial foreclosure has standing to sue for wrongful foreclosure based on an allegedly void assignment of the note and deed of trust — e.g., that the foreclosing entity lacked authority to pursue foreclosure — even if the borrower is in default on the loan and is not a party to the challenged assignment. (Id. at pp. 924, 935, 939.) Under Yvanova, Gauna has standing to challenge the assignment of the deed of trust if the assignment is void but not where the assignment is voidable. (Id. at pp. 942-943.) We independently evaluate the first amended complaint to determine whether it alleges a void assignment.
Here, the first amended complaint alleged (1) the lender could not exercise the power of sale because Chase Home Finance and the lender breached the note and deed of trust, (2) the nonjudicial foreclosure was wrongful because the notice of default was deficient in that it inflated the arrears amount and falsely claimed that the notice was issued by CRC as trustee (when LBMC was the trustee) and that JPMorgan Chase was the beneficiary, (3) CRC was not a validly substituted trustee, and (4) Deutsche Bank was not the beneficiary under the deed of trust and thus could not enter a credit bid.
Regarding the first allegation, we have already concluded Gauna fails to state a cause of action for breach of the note and deed of trust against JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance and Deutsche Bank. As for the allegedly deficient notice of default, the notice contained the statements required under Civil Code section 2924, subdivision (a)(1) and the first amended complaint does not allege facts showing that the information in the notice caused Gauna injury. However, the first amended complaint states a cause of action for wrongful foreclosure by alleging facts showing that CRC (which Deutsche Bank substituted as the new trustee) had no authority to conduct the nonjudicial foreclosure because JPMorgan Chase, the entity from which Deutsche Bank purportedly obtained an assignment of the deed of trust, did not own a beneficial interest in the loan and deed of trust and, therefore, had no authority to assign the deed of trust to Deutsche Bank.
Defendants say the claim that the assignment is void is based on the late transfer of the note into the LBM Trust. But the first amended complaint alleged other facts which Gauna asserts rendered the assignment void. The first amended complaint alleged that the note and deed of trust were sold before WaMu became LBMC’s successor in interest. Therefore, according to the first amended complaint, JPMorgan Chase did not acquire any interest in the note and deed of trust when it purchased WaMu’s assets from the FDIC. Contrary to the assertion by counsel for JPMorgan Chase at oral argument, Gauna raised this issue in her appellate opening brief. She urges on appeal that her loan was sold before LBMC merged with WaMu and, therefore, JPMorgan Chase did not acquire her loan from the FDIC. She complains that the trial court failed to address that allegation.
The judicially noticeable facts do not contradict the allegations in the first amended complaint. While the assignment of the deed of trust recites that JPMorgan Chase was the successor in interest to WaMu and WaMu was the successor in interest to LBMC, we may not take judicial notice of those asserted facts because they are subject to dispute. (Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375; Glaski, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1102.) The matters which we must accept as true for purposes of a demurrer show that the assignment from JPMorgan Chase to Deutsche Bank was void; thus, Deutsche Bank had no authority to substitute CRC as the trustee and CRC had no authority to conduct the nonjudicial foreclosure.
Based on the above, the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the wrongful foreclosure cause of action.
Gauna also contends the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to her causes of action for cancellation of instruments, slander of title and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. We will address each cause of action in turn.
We begin with the cause of action for cancellation of instruments. Civil Code section 3412 provides: “A written instrument, in respect to which there is a reasonable apprehension that if left outstanding it may cause serious injury to a person against whom it is void or voidable, may, upon his application, be so adjudged, and ordered to be delivered up or canceled.” To obtain cancellation, a plaintiff must allege facts showing that the instrument is void or voidable and would cause serious injury if not canceled. (Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pyle (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 513, 523; Saterbak, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at pp. 818-819; Kroeker v. Hurlbert (1940) 38 Cal.App.2d 261, 266.) Here, the cause of action for cancellation of instruments seeks to cancel the note and deed of trust, the assignment of the deed of trust, the notice of default, the substitution of trustee, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale.
The first amended complaint alleges LBMC was not the actual lender on Gauna’s loan and provided no consideration for the note because the loan was table-funded by Doe investors. “ ‘Table-funding’ is defined as a ‘settlement at which a loan is funded by a contemporaneous advance of loan funds and an assignment of the loan to the person advancing the funds.’ [Citation.] In a table-funded loan, the originator closes the loan in its own name, but is acting as an intermediary for the true lender, which assumes the financial risk of the transaction.” (Easter v. Am. West Fin. (9th Cir. 2004) 381 F.3d 948, 955, fn. omitted.) The first amended complaint alleges the note and deed of trust are void because they did not identify the real lender and there was no consideration from LBMC. Gauna argues that because of the table-funding and securitization of her loan, the parties who provided the consideration were concealed in violation of Civil Code sections 1550 and 1558, and there was no mutual consent as required under Civil Code section 1580.
Civil Code section 1558 says the ability to identify the parties to a contract is essential to a contract’s validity. In this case, the promissory note identifies the lender and the borrower. While Gauna alleges Doe investors actually provided the funds that LBMC lent Gauna, she cites no authority that such an arrangement invalidates the contractual relationship between Gauna and LBMC under the note. (Logvinov v. Wells Fargo Bank (N.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2011, No. C-11-04772 DMR) 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 141988, pp. *8-9 [securitization does not change the relationship of the parties to the note]; Sepehry-Fard v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015, No. 14-CV-03218-LHK) 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8790, p. *62 [securitization does not render the plaintiff’s mortgage loans unenforceable].) In any event, the first amended complaint alleges that the true parties to the note are Gauna and the investors who owned the LBM Trust. On this record it appears it was possible to identify the alleged true lender.
Courts have also rejected the argument that a lender loses its interest in a note when it is securitized. (Sepehry-Fard v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, supra, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 8790, p. *62; Ramirez v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (E.D. Cal. June 7, 2013, No. 1:13-CV-352 AWI GSA) 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 80624, p. *10 [securitization of the note does not affect the ability to foreclose]; Hague v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2011, No. C11-02866 TEH) 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 140122, p. *16; Logvinov v. Wells Fargo Bank, supra, 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 141988, pp. *8-9; Wadhwa v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC (E.D. Cal. July 8, 2011, No. S-11-1784 KJM KJN) 2011 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73949, pp. *9-10; Lane v. Vitek Real Estate Indus. Group (E.D. Cal 2010) 713 F.Supp.2d 1092, 1099; Hafiz v. Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2009) 652 F.Supp.2d 1039, 1043.) Gauna cites no authority voiding a note or deed of trust based on table-funding or securitization.
Gauna also argues that the securitization of her loan introduced new parties, terms and risks to her loan contract. However, the first amended complaint does not allege, and Gauna’s appellate brief does not state, facts showing such alteration. Gauna’s conclusory statements are insufficient to plead a void or voidable contract. (New v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assn. (1938) 24 Cal.App.2d 681, 683 [allegation that policy is “in contravention of the laws of the State of California” and is void are mere conclusions of law]; see 5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, § 674, p. 98 [to state an action to remove cloud over title, facts showing actual invalidity of apparently valid instrument must be specifically pleaded].) The first amended complaint failed to allege facts showing that the note and deed of trust are void or voidable.
The cause of action for cancellation of instruments also seeks to cancel the assignment of the deed of trust, the notice of default, the substitution of trustee, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale.
The first amended complaint alleges the assignment of the deed of trust is void because (1) JPMorgan Chase had no valid interest in the note or deed of trust, (2) the interest in Gauna’s note and deed of trust was assigned to Deutsche Bank after the closing date of the LBM Trust, and (3) Colleen Irby was not an officer of JPMorgan Chase and had no authority to execute the assignment for JPMorgan Chase. The first amended complaint alleges that the notice of default, notice of trustee’s sale and trustee’s deed upon sale must be cancelled in part because CRC was not the duly authorized trustee and Deutsche was not the beneficiary under the deed of trust. Those allegations appear to be based on the alleged void assignment by JPMorgan Chase.
In addition, because the assignment to Deutsche Bank is void under the facts alleged, Deutsche Bank had no authority to substitute CRC as the trustee under the deed of trust, the notice of default, the substitution of trustee, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale, and those documents are also void under the facts alleged.
The judgment as to the cancellation of instruments cause of action must be reversed with regard to the assignment of the deed of trust, the notice of default, the substitution of trustee, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale.
With regard to her cause of action for slander of title, Gauna contends the trial court erred in concluding that (a) the deed of trust, substitution of trustee, and trustee’s deed upon sale were privileged under Civil Code section 2924, subdivision (d)(1), (b) the privilege applied because CRC was the trustee under the deed of trust, (c) Gauna must allege malice, and (d) loss of title and investment in the property was not a direct pecuniary loss.
The slander of title cause of action in the first amended complaint is based on the recording of the assignment of the deed of trust, the notice of default, the substitution of trustee, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale. Gauna fails to show how the recording of the assignment of the deed of trust and the substitution of trustee disparaged her title to the property. The first amended complaint does not state a slander of title cause of action based on the recording of those documents.
However, the recording of the notice of default, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale constitute publications for purposes of a slander of title cause of action. (Ghuman v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (E.D. Cal. 2013) 989 F.Supp.2d 994, 1000 (Ghuman).) The first amended complaint alleged those documents contained false statements of material fact and their recording impaired Gauna’s title to the property. The alleged falsity was that CRC was authorized to conduct a nonjudicial foreclosure under the deed of trust.
Based on the above, the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the slander of title cause of action as to the recording of the notice of default, the notice of trustee’s sale, and the trustee’s deed upon sale. But Gauna fails to demonstrate error as to the recording of the assignment of the deed of trust and the substitution of trustee.
Turning to the cause of action for violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., the trial court concluded Gauna failed to show standing because her factual allegations did not demonstrate an economic injury caused by the defendants’ conduct. We agree.
Gauna’s Business and Professions Code cause of action is based on the following alleged acts: Chase Home Finance and the lender refused to accept Gauna’s loan payments, refused to execute the loan modification agreement, and caused to be recorded a notice of default that did not account for all monies paid and inflated the arrears; CRC falsely claimed to be the trustee; and Deutsche Bank accepted late assignments into the LBM Trust.
When a Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. claim is derivative of other substantive causes of action, the claim “stand[s] or fall[s] depending on the fate of the antecedent substantive causes of action.” (Krantz v. BT Visual Images (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 164, 178.) Regarding the alleged refusal to accept Gauna’s loan payments, the first amended complaint fails to state a breach of contract cause of action against JPMorgan Chase, Chase Home Finance and Deutsche Bank and Gauna fails to demonstrate how the refusal to accept loan payments constitutes an unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice by any defendant. As for the allegation that Chase Home Finance and the lender refused to execute the loan modification agreement, as we have explained, Gauna rejected the offer of a modification and she cites no authority mandating acceptance of her counteroffer. Because her claims are not supported by legal analysis and citation to authority, they are forfeited. (Okasaki, supra, 203 Cal.App.4th at p. 1045, fn. 1; Keyes, supra, 189 Cal.App.4th at p. 656.) The first amended complaint does not state facts showing an unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice based on those allegations.
The allegations in the first amended complaint are substantially the same as those in the original complaint. Gauna fails to demonstrate that she can amend her first amended complaint to state a cause of action for fraud and deceit, breach of contract and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.
Gauna further contends the trial court erred in hearing defendants’ demurrer before her discovery motions. She filed motions to compel further discovery responses and for monetary sanctions against defendants after the trial court sustained the demurrer to the original complaint. The discovery motions were set to be heard after the deadline for Gauna to file a first amended complaint. But the parties stipulated to continue the hearing on the discovery motions as they attempted to resolve the issues raised in the motions. Thereafter, the trial court dismissed the action when Gauna failed to file an amended complaint, and it took all hearing dates off its calendar. The trial court subsequently vacated the judgment of dismissal.
In the meantime, defendants notified the trial court they would demur to the first amended complaint and asked that Gauna’s discovery motions not be re-calendared until after the trial court heard the demurrer. Gauna asked that her discovery motions be re-calendared. The trial court directed the court clerk to file Gauna’s first amended complaint and set a hearing on her discovery motions for September 26, 2014. But defendants filed their demurrer to the first amended complaint and the hearing on the demurrer was set before the hearing on the discovery motions. After sustaining the demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend, the trial court dropped the hearing on the discovery motions as moot.

References: v. 
 § 1585
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 674
 v. 
 v.