Attorney for Plaintiff, JOEL SPINOSI and ROSE SPINOSI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Transcription

1 Lenore L. Albert, Esq. SBN LAW OFFICES OF LENORE ALBERT Center Avenue, Suite #00 Huntington Beach, CA Telephone () - Facsimile (1) 1- lenorealbert@msn.com Attorney for Plaintiff, JOEL SPINOSI and ROSE SPINOSI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE JOEL SPINOSI, an individual; and ROSE CASE NO CU-BT-CJC SPINOSI, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT vs.. Promissory Estoppel QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC; AURORA LOAN. Violation of Bus & Prof Code 100 [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL] SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through, inclusive, Defendants. Plaintiffs JOEL SPINOSI and ROSE SPINOSI ("plaintiffs"), by and through their attorney, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring this action against defendants NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC; AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION; and Does 1 through, inclusive ( Defendants ) and allege the following on information and belief, except as to those allegations which pertain to the Plaintiffs: I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiffs, JOEL SPINOSI and ROSE SPINOSI, at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint were the owners of real property commonly known as Pamela Way, Coto de Caza, CA. SPINOSI v QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION CU-BT-CJC

2 Defendant AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC ( ALS Aurora or loan servicer ) has its principal place of business in Colorado and regularly conducts business in the State of California.. Defendant NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC ( NMS ) is now the servicer of plaintiff s loan as on or about April 1, 0, has its principal place of business in Texas and regularly conducts business in the State of California.. Defendant, QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION ("QLS"), has its principal place of business at 1 th Avenue, San Diego, California 1, and regularly conducts business in the State of California, and is authorized to conduct business in the State of California.. Plaintiffs do not know the true names and capacities of the defendants DOES 1 through, inclusive, and, as such, names said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will amend the complaint to state the true name and capacity of the DOE defendant(s) when such information is ascertained.. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and allege thereon, that each defendant is responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged in this complaint, and that plaintiffs damages were proximately caused by the defendants at all times mentioned in this complaint.. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe, and allege thereon, that each defendant was the agent, servant, representative, and/or employee of their co-defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged were acting in the scope of their authority as agents, servants, representatives, family members and/or employees, and with the permission and consent of their co-defendants.. Additionally, plaintiffs are informed and believe, and allege thereon, that each defendant assisted, aided and abetted, adopted, ratified, approved, or condoned the actions of every other defendant and that each corporate defendant, if any, was acting as the alter ego of the other in the acts alleged herein. III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS. On or about April 0, 00, plaintiff, JOEL SPINOSI, refinanced his home for $0, from SCME MORTGAGE BANKERS, INC. on a 0-year note to refinance the singlefamily residence more particularly known as Pamela Way, Coto De Caza, CA, which he at all times mentioned herein occupied. SPINOSI v QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION CU-BT-CJC

3 The Note required monthly payments of $,1. per month at.% fixed interest until June 1, 0.. However, the terms of the note contained negative amortization provisions and the payments being made would not necessarily pay for the full amount of interest actually owed or any of the principal balance.. As a consequence, if the full interest payment was not made it would be added to the principal balance of the loan. At a cap point, the minimum monthly mortgage payment would then automatically be increased.. On or about February, 0 AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC sent Mr. Spinosi a Special Forbearance Agreement titled WORKOUT AGREEMENT.. The Special Forbearance Agreement (Agreement) stated that at that time, Mr. Spinosi owed $,1.01 in missed payments, plus $. in late charges and $.00 in corporate advances on his loan.. The plan requested Mr. Spinosi pay Aurora $,. to cure the default by making an initial payment of $,. then five () consecutive stipulated monthly payments each in the amount of $ commencing 0//0 and continuing through and including 0//0.. An Aurora Loan Services customer service representative told Mr. Spinosi that if he made all of the requested payments and supplied all requested information he could qualify for a loan modification. 1. As a result, the increased monthly payments requested above the regular payment of $,1. as laid out in the Deed of Trust led Mr. Spinosi to believe that if he (1) executed and returned the agreement, () made the payments and () provid[ed] AURORA LOAN SERVICES with accurate and complete financial information in support of the Customer s request for a loan modification.. that a modification or other Cure Method provide d by his lender instead of foreclosure would be forthcoming. 1. Mr. Spinosi (1) executed and returned the agreement, () made all payments as requested to AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC and () provided AURORA LOAN SERVICES with accurate and complete financial information in support of his request for a loan modification. 1. Aurora accepted and cashed each of the payments Mr. Spinosi made. SPINOSI v QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION CU-BT-CJC

4 Before the plan expired, Mr. Spinosi received a letter dated May, 0 from Aurora Loan Services, LLC that represented: a. Our records indicate that you have successfully made several payments in accordance with your home retention payment arrangement. Based on your performance under the payment arrangement, we would like to offer you a more permanent home retention option. 1. After the plan expired in August 0, Mr. Spinosi called Aurora Loan Services, LLC and a representative informed him that his loan modification request was still being reviewed.. He received one letter stating his housing to income ratio was too high, so he submitted more paperwork to Aurora Loan Services which they accepted and stated they would review for a modification.. Thereafter, on or about February, 0 AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC c/o Quality Loan Service Corp. caused a Notice of Default and Election To Sell Under Deed of Trust to be recorded at the Orange County Recorder s Office purporting $,. was owed as of // under the loan.. While still waiting for a final determination on whether his loan could be refinanced or modified, a Notice of Sale was executed and recorded by defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation setting a foreclosure auction on June, 0.. It took one year and five months for Aurora to send plaintiffs a permanent modification after they initially sent in their paperwork requesting a modification and entered into the forbearance agreement.. Eleven months passed since the forbearance plan expired, before plaintiff received a permanent modification offer dated July, 0 from Aurora Loan Services.. A Permanent Loan Modification dated July, 0 was mailed to Mr. and Mrs. Spinosi to review and sign from Aurora Loan Services representative.. Plaintiff reviewed the modified loan terms and discovered: a. the refinanced and modified principal loan balance of $1,0,0. was higher than the original loan of $0,000.00; SPINOSI v QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION CU-BT-CJC

5 b. the monthly mortgage payment of $,00. at % interest rate was higher than the original loan monthly mortgage payment of $,1. at.% interest rate; and c. the modification contained a balloon payment of $0,., wherein the original loan did not contain any balloon payment at all.. Mr. and Mrs. Spinosi did not know how they would be able to repay the loan on the terms provided in the modification refinancing the original loan because they were already struggling to make the current loan commitment. 0. So the plaintiffs had no choice but to turn down the modification offer. 1. Mr. and Mrs. Spinosi had disclosed to Aurora Loan Services that the family income had decreased by almost half since the loan was originated in their modification application papers.. Plaintiff asked Aurora Loan Services how it came to the modified loan terms it offered, however, no explanation was forthcoming.. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that the modification was a refinancing which was not based on the Spinosis ability to pay.. The plaintiffs requested Aurora Loan Services work with them and negotiate out the terms of the refinancing.. However Aurora Loan Services refused to do so.. Then on April 1, 0 their negative amortization loan hit its cap limit and the plaintiff s loan readjusted to a $,0. monthly mortgage payment which the Spinosis could not afford.. The Spinosis allege that Aurora Loan Services was not correctly calculating the monthly payment obligations and hid the true terms of the modification.. The Spinosis allege that they were offered a refinancing/modification that contained predatory and abusive terms in that it did not really offered a % modification on the grounds that the principal of $1,0,0. was not accurate and padded with bogus charges.. The Spinosis ground this allegation on the material fact that: a. Aurora Loan Services had represented that the loan was only behind by $, as of September 0. SPINOSI v QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION CU-BT-CJC

6 b. Aurora Loan Services later represented the principal loan obligation was only $1,0,00.0 on or about June 1, 0. c. The plaintiff s payment at.% was less than the payment requested at % interest rate on the same loan. 0. On or about June 1, 0, Plaintiffs monthly mortgage obligation readjusted to an affordable monthly payment of $,.. 1. On May 0, 0 Plaintiff, through counsel, contacted Aurora Loan Services, LLC through their counsel and requested a Repayment Plan on the Arrearage and to be allowed to make payments on the currently monthly mortgage at the current terms.. Defendants, through their counsel replied that same day sending a don t call us, we will call you a. I m not sure what you mean about a repayment plan but as you can tell from the state court filings in this matter the loss mitigation efforts on this loan have been fairly extensive. If there is anything else to address, we will be in contact with you.. However, there was no loss mitigation efforts in state court ever made by the defendants.. The terms being offered were deceptive and unfair and had no relation to the plaintiff s ability to repay the loan obligation or as a result to ensure that any modification was being made on terms more favorable to the borrower. Principal Monthly Interest Rate Balloon Payments Payments Original /0/0 $0, $,1. -yr Fixed None Loan (.%) P/O ARM Monthly // $, $,. Forbearance down payment Payments SPINOSI v QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION CU-BT-CJC

7 Modification // $1,0,0. $,00. to Variable $0,. Offered $,0. balloon payment New /1/ $1,0,00.0 $,0. Monthly Mort. Payment (Neg Am Cap) New /1/ $1,0,00.0 $,..% Monthly Mort. Payment (Readjusted Interest Rate). The defendant offered abusive and predatory terms in order to increase their own profit and using the offers to support numbers they were providing to various government oversight committees and agencies to make it appear that they were complying with various federal mandates.. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that there are thousands of similarly situated homeowners in California who were offered abusive and predatory refinance arrangements couched as a rescue or workout of their problems when in fact, the original predatory loan was merely being replaced within another one.. The defendants actions and each of them are unfair, unlawful and fraudulent and against the stated public policy of preserving homeownership, personal savings and retirement. CLASS ALLEGATIONS SPINOSI v QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION CU-BT-CJC

8 Class Definition: Plaintiff brings this suit as a class action pursuant to Business & Professions Code section 10 on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons as a member of a Class defined as follows:. Class 1: All persons who reside in California and whose real property was being serviced by Aurora Loan Services, LLC and received a refinance or permanent modification on terms that were predatory, abusive and/or not based on the borrower s ability to repay the loan, from October 00 to present. 0. Excluded from the Class are the Court, defendants, and their affiliates, subsidiaries, current or former employees, officers, directors, agents, representatives, and their family members. 1. Numerosity: The persons who comprise the Plaintiff Class are so numerous that the joinder of all such persons is impracticable and the disposition of their claims as a class will benefit the parties and the Court. Class members are so numerous and are dispersed throughout the United States that joinder of all Class members is impracticable. Class members can be identified, inter alia, through records maintained by the Defendants.. Common Questions of Fact and Law: Nearly all factual, legal, statutory, declaratory and injunctive relief issues that are raised in this Complaint are common to the Plaintiff Class and will apply uniformly to every member of the Plaintiff Class; a. Whether Defendant violated Cal Bus & Prof Code 100 et seq, and ; b. Whether Defendant s business practice was unlawful, unfair or fraudulent within the meaning of the UCL; c. Whether Class members lost money or property as a result of Defendant s violations of section 100 et seq or. d. Whether defendants conduct constituted a breach; and. The representative Plaintiff(s) will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interest of the Plaintiff Class, and have retained counsel who is competent and experienced in Class Action and foreclosure claims. There are no material conflicts between the claims of the representative plaintiff and the members of the plaintiff class that would make class certification inappropriate. Counsel for the plaintiff class will vigorously assert the claims of all members of the plaintiff class.. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class. SPINOSI v QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION CU-BT-CJC

9 A class action is superior to other methods for the fast and efficient adjudication of this controversy and to avoid the risk of disparate and inconsistent rulings in different courts. A class action regarding the issues in this case does not create any problems of manageability.. The nature of notice to the proposed class required and/or contemplated is the best practicable method possible and the contemplated defendant s list, when disclosed, would most likely be notice through media outlets, mailing, the internet and other general notices are contemplated to ensure notice. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Promissory Estoppel (Against NMS, AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC and Does 1 through ). Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action all of the previous allegations in paragraphs 1 through, as though set forth in full herein.. Plaintiff brings this claim on his own behalf and on behalf of each member of the Class described above.. NMS as the successor servicer, is jointly liable for the acts of ALS alleged herein. 0. Plaintiff s original loan terms were abusive and predatory wherein the loan would negatively amortize which would escalate the amount of principal due and owing even during times of payment. 1. Defendant Aurora offered a refinancing as a modification of the original loan which was not based on plaintiff s ability to repay the loan.. The refinancing/modification also contained hidden predatory and abusive terms.. The refinancing/modification was offered after October 1, 00 in violation of various TILA, RESPA and HOEPA federal laws.. Aurora had promised plaintiff that it would review plaintiff for a loan modification or refinancing of the original loan terms when it entered into a forbearance plan with plaintiff in February 0.. Aurora represented that the review would be finalized at the end of the plan.. The Plaintiffs reasonably relied to their detriment on Aurora Loan Services, LLC to fulfill their promise by entering into the forbearance plan and submitting the requested payments and then waiting for a determination. SPINOSI v QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION CU-BT-CJC

10 Defendant Aurora unreasonably delayed in providing the modification/refinance offer until one year and five months later by way of a permanent modification dated July, 0.. As a result of the delay, negative amortization resulted on the principal balance of plaintiff s loan wherein it reached in excess of one-million dollars over that time span making the cure of the default far exceed the sum of what would be the saved up normal monthly mortgage payments, plus late fees, causing damage to plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial.. Although there was a required submittal of the papers and package again after the plan expired, it still took Aurora six months to issue its first denial which was erroneous. Defendant Aurora knew that plaintiffs had a negative amortization loan with predatory and abusive terms that would necessarily spiral out of control like this, yet Aurora took over six months after the Plan Period Expired before it gave plaintiff notice that the modification would be denied and the amount of the Arrearage was well over the cost of the regular monthly mortgage payments. 0. Plaintiff mitigated their damages by resubmitting the package again. 1. Second the terms were not as promised.. Aurora promised the modification or refinancing would be on terms that would assist them in staying in the home.. However, the terms of the modification/refinancing offered were not better than the original terms. The monthly mortgage payment was higher, the principal was higher and it contained a balloon payment that plaintiff had no ability to pay as more particularly alleged above.. As a further proximate result, plaintiff was damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendants as set forth below. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Cal Bus & Prof Code 100 (Against NMS, ALS, QLS and Does 1 through ). Plaintiffs incorporate in this cause of action all of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through above as though set forth in full herein.. Plaintiff brings this claim on his own behalf and on behalf of each member of the Class described above.. NMS as the successor servicer, is jointly liable for the acts of ALS alleged herein. SPINOSI v QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION CU-BT-CJC

11 Business & Professions Code 100 prohibits any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising and any act prohibited by Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 00) of Part of Division of the Business & Professions Code and reaches past and one-time acts. Id. See also, Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v Lucky Stores, Inc., 1 Calth, 0 (1). 0. Beginning at an exact date unknown to plaintiff but at least since October 00, Aurora Loan Services, LLC has committed acts of unfair competition, as defined by Business & Professions Code 100, by engaging in the following practices: a. ALS s policy/practice of failing to accurately calculate and disclose the true interest rate on offered refinancing/modifications to borrower-plaintiffs (eg purporting a monthly payment higher than a.% interest rate payment was based on a lower interest rate), as more particularly described above violated RESPA, HOEPA, and TILA laws and regulations and consequently, constitutes an unlawful business act or practice within the meaning of Business & Professions Code 100. b. ALS s policy/practice of delaying borrowers in default of a determination on their refinancing/modifications then offering modifications/refinancing on troubled loans already in default to borrower-plaintiffs on worse terms to the borrower (eg higher monthly payment; higher principal balance; and added balloon payment) without regard to the borrower s ability to repay the loan, as more particularly described above violated RESPA, HOEPA, and TILA laws and regulations and consequently, constitutes an unlawful business act or practice within the meaning of Business & Professions Code 100. c. The harm to plaintiff and to members of the general public outweighs the utility of defendant s policy/practice, and consequently, Aurora s practice of said representations to borrowers like the Spinosi s seeking assistance in order to save their home from foreclosure constitutes an unfair business act or practice within the meaning of Business & Professions Code 100. d. Aurora s policy/practice as described above is likely to mislead the general public in that said practice actually put the borrower in imminent threat of SPINOSI v QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION CU-BT-CJC

12 losing their home through nonjudicial foreclosure in California, and consequently, constitutes a fraudulent business act or practice within the meaning of Business & Professions Code Second, beginning at an exact date unknown to plaintiff but at least since April 0, Quality Loan Service Corporation has committed acts of unfair competition, as defined by Business & Professions Code 100, by engaging in the following practices: a. QLS s policy/practice of recording notices of default and notices of sale in order to initiate and conclude a foreclosure sale, representing that they have verified that the information is true and correct as to the nature and amount of the default without actually verifying the information is true and correct as to the nature and the amount, was unlawful under California Civil Code et seq and a breach of the express representation made in those documents, and therefore, constitutes an unlawful business act or practice within the meaning of Business & Professions Code 100. b. The harm to plaintiff and to members of the general public outweighs the utility of defendant s policy/practice, and consequently, QLS s practice as described above, constitutes an unfair business act or practice within the meaning of Business & Professions Code 100. c. QLS s policy/practice of using robo-signers and surrogate signers and therefor foregoing verification that a default has occurred and verifying the nature of the default is recorded properly in the notice of default and notice of sale is likely to mislead the public, and consequently, constitutes a fraudulent business act or practice within the meaning of Business & Professions Code 100. d. QLS and Aurora Loan Services, LLC s policy/practice of knowingly procuring or offering false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in the Orange County Recorder s Office, which instrument, if genuine, might be filed, registered, or recorded, violated Penal Code, in that defendants procured and offered the Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust ADOT executed in the name of Jan Walsh against the plaintiff s property in order to allow Aurora to initiate a fraudulent foreclosure on their property knowing that SPINOSI v QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION CU-BT-CJC

13 Jan Walsh was directing others to fraudulently sign/forge documents in order to initiate foreclosures on homeowners like Mr. Spinosi, and including Mr. Spinosi, and consequently, constitutes an unlawful business act or practice within the meaning of Business & Professions Code 100. e. Jan Walsh was employed by Aurora Loan Services, LLC and QLS when executing the documents at issue in this complaint and Aurora Loan Services, LLC is jointly and severally liable in the activities alleged herein. f. Aurora Loan Services, LLC and QLS employed Jan Walsh robo and surrogate signers who executed documents on behalf of Aurora Loan Services, LLC and other entities such as MERS without knowing what she was signing or whether or not the information contained in the documents were true or correct which were used to initiate foreclosures on local homeowners. g. There are at least different signatures of the name Jan Walsh wherein Jan Walsh obviously could not have verified the truth of the contents of the record, such as an assignment, whether there was valuable consideration, when it occurred, the APN and address or nature of default, making the information in the documents by the individuals signing them inaccurate, yet a foreclosure was initiated wrongfully as a result of the inaccurate information. h. That in the case of the Spinosi s, Jan Walsh appears as the signatory on the Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust impliedly purporting to be prepared by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. for the benefit and on behalf of defendant Aurora Loan Services, LLC, wherein defendant Aurora Loan Services, LLC, is attempting to use it initiate a nonjudicial foreclosure by then recording a Notice of Default on its behalf using QLS as the substitute trustee, although the Notary purporting to be one Irene Guerrero represented that she witnessed Jan Walsh execute the document on December 0, 0 on a completely separate and attached page to the ADOT and wherein this is a robo or surrogate signer of notary Irene Guerrero. i. Aurora Loan Services, LLC s policy/practice of employing Jan Walsh who directed the fraudulent notarization and filing documents which were then used SPINOSI v QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION CU-BT-CJC

14 to initiate foreclosure violates Penal Code 0, in that Aurora Loan Services, LLC knew, with the intent to defraud, that the documents were not being signed by the person whose name was being used and as such constituted a forgery, and/or their employees, altered, corrupted, or falsified, the conveyance, or other instrument, constituting a forgery. Defendant Aurora Loan Services, LLC then, with the intent to defraud, uttered, passed or attempted to offer or to pass, as true and genuine, the Notice of Default and Assignment of Deed of Trust as particularly described in this cause of action, and consequently, constitutes an unlawful business act or practice within the meaning of Business & Professions Code 100. e. Aurora Loan Services, LLC s policy/practice of authorizing or permitting by law, offered in evidence, as genuine or true, the documents, records, and other instruments that were signed in the name of Jan Walsh, like the Assignment of Deed of Trust, or other documents created as a result thereof at any trial, proceeding, inquiry, or investigation knowing the same to have been forged or fraudulently altered or ante-dated to prove its right to foreclose, in proceedings, including but not limited to support its Demurrer in Mr. Spinosi s wrongful foreclosure action violates Penal Code, and consequently, constitutes an unlawful business act or practice within the meaning of Business & Professions Code 100. f. QLS and Aurora Loan Services, LLC s policy/practice as alleged in subsection a through g above, commonly known as fraudulent foreclosure through the use of robo-signers or surrogate signers by (1) notarization of a signature of a person not in the presence of the notary public; () offering false instruments for filing or recording; and () signing without verifying the information or having any personal knowledge of the facts contained in the instruments being recorded and used to initiate foreclosure as occurred in this case is likely to mislead the general public, and consequently, constitutes a fraudulent business act or practice within the meaning of Business & Professions Code 100. SPINOSI v QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION CU-BT-CJC

15 g. Defendants Doe 1 through knew and were aware of defendants unlawful, unfair or deceptive business practices alleged above by virtue of directing the foreclosures, attempting to conclude the foreclosures or attempting to become the beneficiary of the foreclosures on the Baldwin s property. h. Defendants Doe 1 through aided and abetted/induced these violations by defendants in that they commanded or attempted to conduct the foreclosure on this property during this time period.. The unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices and false and misleading advertising of Aurora Loan Services, LLC, as described above, present a continuing threat to members of the public in that it gives a false reassurance to a reasonable person in foreclosure that Aurora Loan Services, LLC that the permanent modification or refinancing would be offered at a rate that was more favorable than the terms of the original loan and would be offered in a reasonable time.. Plaintiffs were damaged in their property interest and were duped into making unnecessary payments under the forbearance plan for a modification that was not based on their ability to repay the debt.. Plaintiff and other members of the general public have no other adequate remedy at law in that real property is deemed unique, and the plaintiff and other members of the general public lost their opportunity to take advantage of any alternative to foreclosure after Plan Payments ended on the grounds that they were duped by the false advertisement of Aurora Loan Services, LLC.. As a result of the aforementioned acts, plaintiff s have lost money or property and suffered injury in fact.. Finally, stopping this practice furthers the public interest. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to reasonable attorney's fees under section 1. of the California Code of Civil Procedure.. Moreover defendants engaged in a uniform pattern and practice of unfair and overlyaggressive servicing that resulted in the unwarranted emotional distress of homeowners, including the Spinosi s. The scheme implemented by defendants is designed to defraud California consumers and enrich defendants. SPINOSI v QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION CU-BT-CJC

16 By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have been unjustly enriched and should be required to pay for all damages caused by their conduct, remediate all credit damage created thereby, and make restitution to Plaintiffs and other California consumers who have been harmed, and/or be enjoined from continuing in such practices pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Sections 10 and 10.. Additionally, Plaintiffs are further entitled to injunctive relief and attorneys fees as available under California Business and Professions Code Sec. 100 and related sections, and any other equitable relief that the court deems appropriate. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendants as set forth below. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows: A. Injunctive relief; B. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code 10, that all Defendants, their successors, agents, representatives, employees, and all persons who act in concert with them be permanently enjoined from committing any acts of unfair competition in violation of 100, including, but not limited to, the violations alleged herein. C. Compensatory, Special and General Damages as proven at trial; D. Statutory damages and civil penalties; E. Restitution and Disgorgement of profits; F. Costs of this action, including the fees and costs of experts; G. Attorneys fees; H. Prejudgment interest at the statutory rate; I. Post-judgment interest; J. Exemplary and Punitive Damages; and K. Such other and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial for all legal claims. SPINOSI v QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION CU-BT-CJC

17 Dated: November, 0 Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFICES OF LENORE ALBERT /s/ Lenore Albert LENORE L. ALBERT, ESQ. Attorney for Plaintiffs, JOEL SPINOSI and ROSE SPINOSI 1 SPINOSI v QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION CU-BT-CJC