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

Case Number

24CV00900

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 01/07/2026 - 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, Defendant Nationstar Mortgage, LLC dba Mr. Cooper’s motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, is denied.

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. Plaintiff opposes the motion. Following the filing of the motion, Maurice Heffernan dismissed his claims.

On November 19, 2025, this motion was continued to January 7, 2026, because Plaintiff had failed to file a code-compliant responsive separate statement of facts. The Court gave Plaintiff an opportunity to file a code compliant responsive separate statement. On December 3, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amended responsive separate statement and a declaration.

On December 22, 2025, Nationstar filed objections to Plaintiff’s declaration in support of her opposition and response to Plaintiff’s separate statement.

Analysis

            Evidentiary Objections

Nationstar objects to paragraphs 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 of Plaintiff’s declaration in opposition to summary judgment.

“In granting or denying a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, the Court need rule only on those objections to evidence that it deems material to its disposition of the motion. Objections to evidence that are not ruled on for purposes of the motion shall be preserved for appellate review.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (q).)

“ ‘The same rules of evidence that apply at trial also apply to the declarations submitted in support of and in opposition to motions for summary judgment. Declarations must show the declarant’s personal knowledge and competency to testify, state facts and not just conclusions, and not include inadmissible hearsay or opinion.’ ” [Citation.] “ ‘The declarations in support of a motion for summary judgment should be strictly construed, while the opposing declarations should be liberally construed. [Citation.] This does not mean that Courts may relax the rules of evidence in determining the admissibility of an opposing declaration. Only admissible evidence is liberally construed in deciding whether there is a triable issue.’ ” [Citation.]” (Fernandez v. Alexander (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 770, 779.)

Nationstar’s objections to paragraphs 8 and 9 are sustained to the extent that the paragraphs contain Plaintiff’s opinions and legal conclusions. The objections are otherwise overruled.

            Requests for Judicial Notice

Nationstar requests that the Court take judicial notice of 28 separate documents. Plaintiff has not objected to the request.

“ ‘Courts can take judicial notice of the existence, content and authenticity of public records and other specified documents, but do not take judicial notice of the truth of the factual matters asserted in those documents.’ ” [Citation.]” (Dominguez v. Bonta (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 389, 400.)

The Court will take judicial notice of the documents but not of the truth of the factual matters asserted therein.

          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

“Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (b)(1), requires each motion for summary judgment to be accompanied by a separate statement “ ‘setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts that the moving party contends are undisputed. Each of the material facts stated shall be followed by a reference to the supporting evidence.’ ” California Rules of Court, rule 3.1350(d)(2)4 states: “ ‘The separate statement should include only material facts and not any facts that are not pertinent to the disposition of the motion.’ ” Under the Rules of Court, “ ‘ “Material facts’ “ are facts that relate to the cause of action, claim for damages, issue of duty, or affirmative defense that is the subject of the motion and that could make a difference in the disposition of the motion.’ ” (Rule 3.1350(a)(2).)” (Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc. (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 865, 874-875.)

“The point of the separate statement is not to craft a narrative, but to be a concise list of the material facts and the evidence that supports them. “ ‘The separate statement serves two important functions in a summary judgment proceeding: It notifies the parties which material facts are at issue, and it provides a convenient and expeditious vehicle permitting the trial Court to hone in on the truly disputed facts.’ ” [Citation.]” (Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc., supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at page 875.)

“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.” (Beltran v. Hard Rock Hotel Licensing, Inc., supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at page 875.)

“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.)

“ ‘Include only those facts which are truly material to the claims or defenses involved because the separate statement effectively concedes the materiality of whatever facts are included. Thus, if a triable issue is raised as to any of the facts in your separate statement, the motion must be denied!’ ” [Citation.]” (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252.]

There are 278 facts included in Nationstar’s separate statement.

While some of the UMF’s that Plaintiff disputes are not reasonably disputed, there are several “facts” included in Nationstar’s motion that are reasonably disputed or are merely arguments and legal conclusions. As just a sampling of those “facts” that preclude the granting of summary judgment or summary adjudication:

UMF No. 4: “Plaintiffs’ contractual monthly payments were $14,686.64.” The fact does not say when the monthly payment was that amount, and Plaintiff has pointed to exhibits that show several different amounts. This is enough to show that there are triable issues with respect to this UMF.

UMF No. 16: “Nationstar has diligently communicated with Plaintiffs since the transfer of loan servicing to present and continued to update them on the status of their Loan throughout its servicing.” The wording of the UMF itself shows that there is a triable issue of fact as to whether Nationstar was “diligent” or otherwise complied with its obligations.

UMF No. 29: “Between August 2014 and June 2015, Nationstar has tried to communicate with Plaintiffs regarding loss mitigation but without success.” The term “without success” is vague and begs the question as to whether that means that the failure to communicate was the fault of Plaintiff or Nationstar. Plaintiff has provided evidence that she attempted to communicate with Nationstar, during that time period, numerous times.

UMF No. 33: “No further documents were received from Plaintiffs to complete their loan modification application.” The UMF fails to give a timeframe for the claimed lack of documents from Plaintiff. Plaintiff has provided some evidence that she provided additional and updated documents on numerous occasions. Finally, as worded, the UMF appears to contradict other UMFs that state Plaintiffs did provide additional documents at times.

UMF No. 61 (and subsequent UMFs that state the same thing): “With no active loss mitigation, the Loan returned to regular servicing.” The UMF does not establish that there actually was “no active loss mitigation, and Plaintiff has provided some evidence that there were attempts at loss mitigation. This creates a triable issue with respect to this UMF.

UMF No. 211: “First, in their previous adversary proceedings against HSBC, Plaintiffs filed nearly identical claims, alleging the same wrongdoing and bringing the same causes of action as here against HSBC.” The Court has reviewed Nationstar’s evidence in support, which is the complaint filed in bankruptcy Court. The copy submitted to this Court is of such poor quality that it is barely readable. However, the Court can make out that it is a complaint for quiet title, to remove cloud on title, and for declaratory relief against HSBC. It does not include Nationstar as a party and, from what can be ascertained, it is based on different theories of liability.

UMF No. 217: “While Nationstar was not a party in the Adversary Proceeding, Nationstar is in privity with HSBC because Nationstar is HSBC’s servicing agent, and they share an interest in the Loan and the Property; the same Loan and same Property that are at issue in both cases.” The UMF is a legal conclusion and the evidence that Nationstar references as supporting the UMF does not necessarily establish privity as a matter of law. Further, Nationwide simply references eight exhibits without pointing to specific portions of the exhibits that establish the fact.

UMF No. 218: “Nationstar should not be required to litigate issues that were raised and decided in the Adversary Proceeding.” This is not a “fact” at all. This is simply an argument that Plaintiff is permitted to dispute. To the extent that the “fact” is meant to imply claim or issue preclusion, Nationstar has failed to provide sufficient evidence.

UMF No. 222: “Plaintiffs cannot show Nationstar has an adverse claim to theirs.” Again, this is just argument and Nationstar has failed to provide sufficient evidence that Plaintiff will be able to produce evidence of an adverse claim.

UMF No. 230: “Because Plaintiffs’ underlying claims fail, so should the claim for declaratory relief.” As above, this is argument and a legal conclusion. The referenced evidence in support does not establish the fact as stated.

UMF No. 234: “Finally, Nationstar’s evidence confirms Nationstar did not violate Civil Code Sections 2923.5 and 2924 et seq.” This is another argument based on an unsupported legal conclusion. The supporting evidence does not establish the fact as stated.

UMF No. 242: “Nationstar’s evidence confirms Plaintiffs were properly considered for, and have had a meaningful opportunity to obtain, any available loss mitigation option.” The UMF is a conclusory argument, and Plaintiff has raised a triable issue as to whether she was properly considered for or had a meaningful opportunity to obtain loss mitigation. 

UMF No. 243: “Plaintiffs have already received the benefit of HBOR.” The UMF is another conclusory statement and legal opinion. There is a triable issue as to whether Plaintiff did receive the intended protections of the HBOR.

UMF No. 255: “Plaintiffs lack standing as they cannot show they suffered any injury ‘as a result of’ or ‘caused by’ the alleged unfair competition since it was Plaintiffs’ own default on the First Loan which triggered the foreclosure.” This is a legal conclusion and is contradicted by Plaintiff’s declaration.

UMF No. 256: “Because Plaintiffs cannot show they tendered the amounts due on the Loan, they are ineligible for injunctive relief.” This is another legal conclusion that is disputed by Plaintiff’s declaration and submitted evidence.

UMF No. 259: “Plaintiffs have not put forth evidence of a contractual benefit they did not receive.” This is another legal conclusion that is disputed by Plaintiff’s declaration and submitted evidence.

UMF No. 268: “Plaintiffs cannot prove violations of the HBOR.” The UMF is another conclusory statement and legal opinion. There is a triable issue as to whether Plaintiff will be able to prove violations of the HBOR.

UMF No. 269: “Plaintiffs also cannot show a causal nexus between Nationstar’s purported negligent actions with their purported damages.” This is another legal conclusion that is disputed by Plaintiff’s declaration and submitted evidence.

UMF No. 274: “As explained at section IV.D. above, this claim fails because Nationstar cured any alleged violation when it reviewed Plaintiffs’ eight separate loan modification applications submitted after they filed this lawsuit.” This is another legal conclusion that is disputed by Plaintiff’s declaration and submitted evidence.

UMF No. 277: “Plaintiffs’ alleged damages could have been avoided if Plaintiffs had accepted on[e] of the workouts.” This is another legal conclusion that is disputed by Plaintiff’s declaration and submitted evidence. It also contradicts other UMFs claiming that Plaintiffs did not suffer any damages.

UMF No. 278: “Plaintiffs failed to take any reasonable steps to avoid their alleged harm.” This is another legal conclusion that is disputed by Plaintiff’s declaration and submitted evidence. It also contradicts other UMFs claiming that Plaintiffs did not suffer any harm.

As there are triable issues of material fact with respect to each cause of action, the motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication, will be denied.