First Amended Complaint Plaintiff)

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

1 _________________________________________________

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS, ESQ. SBN 147715LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS13240 Amargosa RoadVictorville, California 92392(760) 951-3663 Telephone(909) 382-9956 FacsimileAttorney for

Plaintiff

LYNDON BAKER

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAIN AND FOR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

LYNDON BAKER,Plaintiff,V.MORTGAGE ELECTRONICREGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.; CHASEBANK USA, N.A.; LANDAMERICA NEWCENTURY TITLE; RECONTRUST INC.;RECONTRUST INC; and DOES 1 through50 inclusiveDefendants.CASE NO: CIVRS901013

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:MONETARY DAMAGESSTATUTORY DAMAGES, PUNITIVEDAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ANDDECLARATORY RELIEF

1. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVILCODE §2923.6;2. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS ANDPROFESSIONS CODE §17200;3. BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOODAND FAIR DEALING;4. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;5. VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE §1572;6. FRAUD;7. DECLARATORY RELIEF;8. INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION;9. TO SET ASIDE FORECLOSURE10. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVILCODES §2923.5 AND §2924.

Plaintiff, LYNDON BAKER, (Hereinafter referred as “Plaintiff”) alleges herein as follows:

2 _________________________________________________

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

I.GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1.

Plaintiff, LYNDON BAKER at all times relevant has been a resident of the County of San Bernardino, State of California and the owner of Real Property, including but notlimited to the property at issue herein, 6084 Linda Vista Court, Rancho Cucamonga,CA 91739. The Legal descriptions are as follows:APN:

:

1043522080000Lot (26) in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California,as recorded in the office of the County Recorder of Said County, California(hereinafter “SubjectProperty”)

2.

Defendant, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.; (hereinafter “JP MORGAN”) at alltimes herein mentioned was doing business in the County of San Bernardino, State of California and was the original Lender for Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust Deed and Note.

3.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., (hereinafter “MERS”) at all timesherein mentioned was presumed to being doing business in the County of SanBernardino, State of California and alleged to be the Beneficiary regarding Plaintiffs’Real Property as described above and as Situated in San Bernardino County California

4.

Defendant, CHASE BANK USA N.A. (hereinafter “CHASE BANK”) at all timesherein mentioned was doing business in the County of San Bernardino, State of California.

3 _________________________________________________

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

5.

Defendant, CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC.; (hereinafter “CHASE HOME”) at alltimes herein mentioned was doing business in the County of

San Bernardino, State of California.6. Defendant, LANDAMERICA NEW CENTURY TITLE (hereinafter “LANDAMERICA”) at all times herein mentioned was doing business in the Countyof San Bernardino, State of California.7.Defendant RECONTRUST INC., at all times herein mentioned was doing business inthe County of San Bernardino, State of California. In 2008, an unknown employee of RECONTRUST executed on behalf of the alleged Beneficiary a “Notice of Default:stated that the payments were due to MERS and JP MORGAN as beneficiary.

8.

Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein asDOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitiousnames and all persons unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien,or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to plaintiff’s title, or anycloud on Plaintiff’s title thereto. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their truenames and capacities when ascertained.

9.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times hereinmentioned each of the defendants sued herein was the agent and employee of each of the remaining defendants. Plaintiff alleges that each and every defendant alleged hereinratified the conduct of each and every other defendant. Plaintiff further alleges that atall times said defendants were was acting within the purpose and scope of such agencyand employment.

of 00

Leave a Comment