Maurice Heffernan, et al. v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, et al.

Case Number

24CV00900

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 11/19/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC dba Mr. Cooper’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiffs Maurice Heffernan and Susan Heffernan: Patricia Rodriguez 

For Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC dba Mr. Cooper: Andrea M. Hicks

                                   

For Defendant Newrez, LLC fka Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC: Robert W. Norman Jr. and Alexandra Coronado King

                                   

For Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation: Daniel J. Goulding

 

RULING

For the reasons set forth herein, the hearing on Nationstar Mortgage, LLC dba Mr. Cooper’s motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication is continued to January 7, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. in this department. Plaintiffs are ordered to file and serve a code-compliant separate statement no later than December 3, 2025, along with any supporting evidence. Nationstar may file a reply addressing any new issues or evidence raised by Plaintiffs’ separate statement and evidence in support. Such reply, if any, shall be filed and served no later than December 22, 2025.

Background

This action commenced on February 20, 2024, by the filing of the original complaint by Plaintiffs Maurice Heffernan and Susan Heffernan (collectively “Plaintiffs”) against several Defendants.

On March 22, 2024, this action was removed to federal Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. On May 8, 2024, this action was remanded from federal Court because Plaintiffs dismissed all their federal claims.

On July 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Nationstar Mortgage (“Nationstar”), Quality Loan Service Corporation (“Quality”), McCarthy & Holthus (“M&H”), Specialized Loan Servicing (Specialized Loan Servicing is now known as “Newrez,” and will be referred to as such), and Affinia Default Services (“Affinia”).

On February 4, 2025, Plaintiffs filed their operative verified second amended complaint against Nationstar and Newrez.

The SAC contains causes of action for: (1) Quiet Title; (2) Declaratory Relief; (3) Violation of Homeowner’s Bill of Rights; (4) Violation of Business & Professions Code section 17200; (5) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (6) Negligence; and (7) Violation of Civil Code section 2924.12. The SAC, including attachments, is 226 pages long, and is based upon a non-judicial foreclosure of property located at 1202 Del Oro Avenue, Santa Barbara, two loan agreements secured by the property, and assignments of deeds of trust.

On March 3, 2025, Nationstar answered the SAC, admitting some allegations and denying most. Nationstar also sets forth 29 affirmative defenses.

Nationstar now moves for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. Plaintiffs oppose the motion. (Note: Following the filing of the motion, Maurice Heffernan dismissed his claims. Because the motion refers to both Plaintiffs, this ruling will also refer to both Plaintiffs collectively for consistency.)

Analysis

Standard on Summary Judgment

A Defendant’s motion for summary judgment asks the Court to determine that the entire action has no merit, and to terminate the action without the necessity of a trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a).) The procedure enables the Court to look behind the pleadings to determine whether the party against whom the motion is directed has evidence to back up the claims. The Court must determine from the evidence presented that there is no triable issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

“[F]rom commencement to conclusion, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) There is no obligation on the opposing party to establish anything by affidavit unless and until the moving party has by affidavit stated facts establishing every element necessary to sustain an adjudication in his favor. (Consumer Cause, Inc. v. Smilecare (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 454, 468.) “[W]e liberally construe Plaintiff’s evidentiary submissions and strictly scrutinize Defendant’s own evidence, in order to resolve any evidentiary doubts or ambiguities in Plaintiff’s favor.” (Johnson v. American Standard, Inc. (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56, 64.)

“A Defendant … has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action. Once the Defendant … has met that burden, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff or cross-complainant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).)

In resolving the motion, the Court may not weigh the evidence. (Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840.) Rather, the role of the trial Court in resolving a summary judgment motion is to determine whether issues of fact exist, not to decide the merits of the issues. (Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1092, 1107.) A triable issue of material fact exists only if the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850.) Any doubts as to the propriety of granting the motion should be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. (Molko v. Holy Spirit Assn., supra at p. 1107.)

Separate Statement

“The Separate Statement in Opposition to Motion must be in the two-column format specified in (h).

“(1) Each material fact claimed by the moving party to be undisputed must be set out verbatim on the left side of the page, below which must be set out the evidence said by the moving party to establish that fact, complete with the moving party’s references to exhibits.

“(2) On the right side of the page, directly opposite the recitation of the moving party’s statement of material facts and supporting evidence, the response must unequivocally state whether that fact is ‘disputed’ or ‘undisputed.’ An opposing party who contends that a fact is disputed must state, on the right side of the page directly opposite the fact in dispute, the nature of the dispute and describe the evidence that supports the position that the fact is controverted. Citation to the evidence in support of the position that a fact is controverted must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers.

“(3) If the opposing party contends that additional material facts are pertinent to the disposition of the motion, those facts must be set forth in the separate statement. The separate statement should include only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition of the motion. Each fact must be followed by the evidence that establishes the fact. Citation to the evidence in support of each material fact must include reference to the exhibit, title, page, and line numbers.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(f).)

“The opposition papers shall include a separate statement that responds to each of the material facts contended by the moving party to be undisputed, indicating if the opposing party agrees or disagrees that those facts are undisputed. The statement also shall set forth plainly and concisely any other material facts the opposing party contends are disputed. Each material fact contended by the opposing party to be disputed shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. Failure to comply with this requirement of a separate statement may constitute a sufficient ground, in the Court’s discretion, for granting the motion.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (b)(3).)

“Separate statements serve a laudable purpose. As explained in Weil & Brown, California Practice Guide (The Rutter Group 1996) Civil Procedure Before Trial, paragraph 10:94.1, pp. 10–31, 10–32, these documents are ‘intended to permit the judge to determine quickly whether the motion is supported by sufficient undisputed facts. If the opposing statement disputes an essential fact alleged in support of the motion, the judge merely has to review the evidence cited in support of that fact. This saves the judge from having to review all the evidentiary materials filed in support of and in opposition to the motion.’ ” (Kulesa v. Castleberry (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 103, 113.)

The duty to comply with the law regarding separate statements applies to both sides of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication. The opposing party’s responses to the separate statement must be in good faith, responsive, and material. Responses should directly address the fact stated, and if that fact is not in dispute, the opposing party must so admit. It is completely unhelpful to evade the stated fact in an attempt to create a dispute where none exists.

There are 278 facts included in the separate statement.

Plaintiffs’ responsive separate statement is deficient and does not comply with the Code of Civil Procedure or the California Rules of Court. While it starts out in compliance, by stating that facts Nos. 1-3 are undisputed, the responses then begin to state things that do not address the facts presented. For example, fact No. 4 states: “Plaintiffs’ contractual monthly payments were $14,686.64.” Plaintiffs’ response is: “Disputed. Hearsay/lack of foundation (NSM Decl. only). To the extent ‘$14,686.64’ is derived from servicer summaries, it is inadmissible without business-records foundation. Plaintiffs’ 2017 ARM notice shows recalculation around 4.000% and payment figures inconsistent with servicer characterizations.” Basically, Plaintiffs are attempting to avoid simply addressing the fact as stated. The response makes little sense and does not meaningfully dispute the fact. Additionally, other responses, such as the response to fact No. 5, basically state that the fact is undisputed and then further add argument regarding the legal effect of the fact. Plaintiffs are required to simply refer to the fact as stated. The proper response would be to state, “undisputed,” and then argue the legal effect in the points and authorities.

Finally, and most concerning, is that Plaintiffs’ responses to the separate statement are completely devoid of any references to evidence in support of their denials of facts. Because of this, the Court could simply deem all the facts as not reasonably disputed.

Plaintiffs’ deficient separate statement makes it impossible for the Court to determine which facts are genuinely, and reasonably, disputed.

Nationstar urges the Court to simply grant the motion due to Plaintiffs’ improper, non-code-compliant, separate statement. The Court declines to do so. “ ‘[A]n immediate grant of summary judgment is, in most instances, too harsh a consequence.’ ” [Citation.] “ ‘[T]he proper response, in most instances, if the trial Court is not prepared to address the merits of the motion in light of the deficient separate statement, is to give the opposing party an opportunity to file a proper separate statement. . . .’ ” [Citation.]” (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 263.)

Plaintiff will be given an opportunity to file and serve a proper code-compliant separate statement that addresses the specific facts as set forth by Nationstar, as either “disputed” or “undisputed,” and shall cite to admissible evidence in support of their position. Nationstar shall have the opportunity to respond to any new issues that are raised by Plaintiffs amended separate statement, and to respond to any evidence submitted by Plaintiffs in support of the separate statement but are not to repeat arguments previously made or to raise new issues that could have been raised in the moving papers.