LOZANO vs BANK OF AMERICA NA, et al.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

25CV016766: LOZANO vs BANK OF AMERICA NA, et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

****NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION*****

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Bank of America, N.A.’s (“Defendants”) demurrer to Plaintiff in pro per Abel Lozano, Jr.’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint is ruled upon as follows.

Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted for the limited purposes permitted for judicial notice. (See, Evid. Code §451, subd. (a); §452, sub. (b)-(d); see also, Johnson & Johnson v. Superior Court (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 757, 768 [court may take judicial notice of the existence of court documents but not to the truth of the statements contained therein]; Kilroy v. State of California (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145- 148; Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1569-70.)

I.

Background

This is a quiet title action. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that he is the full legal and beneficial owner of the residence located at 8948 Sonoma Valley Way, Sacramento, California. (Complaint, ¶ 2, 25.) Plaintiff alleges that an original loan agreement between Plaintiff and Sierra Pacific Mortgage was signed January 13, 2003. (Id., ¶ 12.) The mortgage was then transferred, sold or bought by Defendant Wells Fargo Bank. (Ibid.) Plaintiff alleges that on December 12, 2018, he entered into a loan modification agreement under duress with Defendants. (Id., ¶ 11.) Plaintiff alleges that a tender of payment was made and denied in August 2024; Plaintiff alleges that the tender of payment was kept by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and is still in its possession. (Id., ¶ 15.)

Plaintiffs filed his Complaint on July 14, 2025. Plaintiff alleges causes of action for (1) quiet title and (2) preliminary injunction and declaratory relief.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016766: LOZANO vs BANK OF AMERICA NA, et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

Defendants demur to Plaintiff’s causes of action on the grounds that Plaintiff fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for both causes of action and uncertainty.

Plaintiff opposes arguing that Defendant’s demurrer fails for the following reasons: “(1) lack of corporate Authorization to appear, (2) absence of Article III standing, (3) violation of Federal Reserve Act Trust requirements, (4) federal preemption under Garn-St. Germain Act, (5) note and deed Separation destroying security interest, (6) MERS fatal chain-of-title defect, (7) debt cancellation And extinction through IRS filings, (8) reliance on unauthenticated exhibits, (9) due process Violations, (10) Banking Act violations through securities activities and (11) The BANK OF AMERICA N.A patent U.S 7,761,356 B2 creates admissions against interest establishing that Bank of America operates as custodian of fractional interests in securitized pools rather than as Direct mortgage holder.” (Opposition at p. 12:5-14.)

II.

Legal Standard

The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading it challenges by raising questions of law. (Salimi v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216, 219; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271.)

A demurrer “tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) The purpose of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a claim. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc. §452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141; Quelimane Co. v.

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) In this respect, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111- 1112.) A general demurrer does not admit contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. (Blank v.

Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, William S. Hart Union High School Dist. v. Regional Planning Com. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1616, fn. 2.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016766: LOZANO vs BANK OF AMERICA NA, et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) “Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief . . . we are not concerned with plaintiff’s possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.) “[Courts] are required to construe the complaint liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.” (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.) A demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pled and the sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action – not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)

III.

Discussion

As a threshold issue, Plaintiff opposition does not directly respond to Defendant’s arguments made in the moving papers. Instead, Plaintiff appears to challenge Defendant’s ability to demur to the Complaint (corporate authorization[1], Article III standing, chain of title defect, revocation of power of attorney) and to assert arguments regarding the enforceability of the mortgage based on the securitization and transfer of the note (Federal Reserve Act Trust, federal preemption, note and deed separation, debt cancellations, etc.). Plaintiff provides no legal authority showing that these are proper grounds on which to oppose a demurrer. Nor is the Court aware of any legal requirement that Defendant prove its standing or the validity of the mortgage prior to filing a demurrer.

At this stage of the litigation, as set forth above, the Court is concerned only with the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s allegations. In opposition, Plaintiff also does not provide substantive arguments with respect to the sufficiency of his allegations. Nevertheless, the Court evaluates Plaintiff’s allegations for each cause of action notwithstanding Plaintiff’s failure to directly respond to Defendants’ arguments.

A. First Cause of Action – Quiet Title

Defendants argue that Plaintiff cannot allege a cause of action for quiet title because Plaintiff has not alleged that he tendered the full amount owed. Defendant also argues Plaintiff quitclaimed his interest in the property and therefore has no claim to legal title.

The elements of an action to quiet title are: (1) “the plaintiff is the owner and in possession of the land,” and (2) “the defendant claims an interest therein adverse to [the plaintiff].” (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 740-741; see also Code Civ. Proc. § 761.020.) “A borrower may not, however, quiet title against a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016766: LOZANO vs BANK OF AMERICA NA, et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

secured lender without first paying the outstanding debt on which the mortgage or deed of trust is based.” (Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 49, 86.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges that only that he attempted to tender a payment, which was denied in August 2024. (Id., ¶ 15.) This conclusory allegation is insufficient to state a cause of action for quiet title. Plaintiff has alleged the existence of a mortgage signed in 2003 and a loan modification signed under duress in 2018. As a result, Plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to show that he tendered the full amount of the outstanding debt on the mortgage.

With respect to Defendant’s second argument, “a court may take judicial notice of the fact of a document’s recordation, the date the document was recorded and executed, the parties to the transaction reflected in the recorded document, and the document's legally operative language, assuming there is no genuine dispute regarding the document’s authenticity.” (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 265; disapproved on other grounds in Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 919, 939, fn. 13; see Yvanova, at p. 924, fn. 1 [judicial notice of the “existence and facial contents” of recorded documents, including notices of default and a trustee’s deed upon sale, was proper].)

Here, Defendant attaches a Quitclaim Deed, recorded on January 27, 2025, which transfers the property from Plaintiff and his wife to “RML REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Rebecca: Lozano as Trustee and Abel: Lozano as Beneficiary.” (RJN Ex. 6.) Plaintiff appears to object to the documents attached to Defendant’s request for judicial notice on the ground that they are unauthenticated. (See Opposition at p. 4:1-14.) However, Plaintiff does not directly dispute the authenticity of the document. As a result, the Court can take judicial notice of the parties and the legally operative language of the Quitclaim deed. The legal effect of such a conveyance is that Plaintiff no longer has an ownership interest in the real property at issue in this case.

Because it does not appear that Plaintiff currently has an interest in the real property, the demurrer is sustained for this reason as well.

Therefore, Defendants’ demurrer to the first cause of action is SUSTAINED.

B. Second Cause of Action – Preliminary Injunction and Declaratory Relief

Defendants contend that Plaintiff’s second cause of action fails because preliminary injunction is not a cause of action, and the claim for declaratory relief is duplicative and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016766: LOZANO vs BANK OF AMERICA NA, et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

derivative of the quiet title claim.

“A preliminary injunction is an interim remedy designed to maintain the status quo pending a decision on the merits. [Citation.] It is not, in itself, a cause of action.” (Siskiyou Hospital, Inc. v. County of Siskiyou (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 14, 55.) Because the Court has sustained Defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action for quiet title, which is the only substantive cause of action which may have supported the requested injunction, the Court sustains Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s claim for preliminary injunction.

Code of Civil Procedure section 1060, which governs declaratory relief actions, states:

Any person interested under a written instrument, excluding a will or a trust, or under a contract, or who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties with respect to another, or in respect to, in, over or upon property, or with respect to the location of the natural channel of a watercourse, may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action or cross-complaint in the superior court for a declaration of his or her rights and duties in the premises, including a determination of any question of construction or validity arising under the instrument or contract.

He or she may ask for a declaration of rights or duties, either alone or with other relief; and the court may make a binding declaration of these rights or duties, whether or not further relief is or could be claimed at the time. The declaration may be either affirmative or negative in form and effect, and the declaration shall have the force of a final judgment. The declaration may be had before there has been any breach of the obligation in respect to which said declaration is sought.

Generally, “a demurrer is not an appropriate weapon to attack a claim for declaratory relief inasmuch as the plaintiff is entitled to a declaration of its rights, even if adverse.” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 460.) Here, Plaintiff has adequately alleged a controversy regarding the mortgage. For purposes of demurrer, which considers only the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s allegations, it is irrelevant that Plaintiff has failed to adequately allege tender or ownership, which would result in a negative declaration. Instead, the focus of the analysis is on whether Plaintiff has alleged a controversy in which he may be entitled to a declaration of his rights.

Therefore, Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiff’s declaratory relief claim on this ground is overruled.

C. Uncertainty

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016766: LOZANO vs BANK OF AMERICA NA, et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

Although Defendant indicates that it demurs to both causes of action on the ground of uncertainty, Defendant provides no legal argument explaining in what respect the Complaint is uncertain.

A demurrer will lie if the pleading is uncertain, ambiguous and unintelligible. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (f).) “[D]emurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.” (Lickiss v. Financial Inds. Reg. Auth. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1125, 1135.) The favored approach is to clarify theories in the complaint through discovery. (See Khoury v. Maly's of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)

In the absence of specific legal argument in support of this ground of the motion, Defendant’s demurrer on uncertainty is OVERRULED.

IV.

Disposition

Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer is SUSTAINED in part and OVERRULED in part as stated above.

Because this is the first challenge to the pleading, the Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend. However, the Court notes that it is unclear whether Plaintiff can overcome the defects identified above given the existence of the recorded Quitclaim deed.

Plaintiff may file and serve a first amended complaint no later than July 15, 2026. Response to be filed and served within 30 days thereafter, 35 days if the amended cross-complaint is served by mail. (Although not required by any statute or rule of court, Plaintiffs are requested to attach a copy of the instant minute order to the amended complaint to facilitate the filing of the pleading.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1019.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1312.)

[1] To the extent Plaintiff contends that Defendants have not “established corporate

authorization to appear” (Opp’n at 3:6-7), Plaintiff fails to provide any authority to support a requirement that Defendants must provide authority to appear through counsel. Rather, “[a]n attorney’s authority to represent his purported client is presumed in the absence of a strong factual showing to the contrary. (Sarracino v. Superior Court (1974) 13 Cal.3d 1, 13; see Sullivan v. Dunne (1926) 198 Cal. 183, 190 [“The fact that an attorney appears on behalf of a party raises a presumption of ‘authority upon his

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV016766: LOZANO vs BANK OF AMERICA NA, et al. 06/24/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 8D

part to do so.’”].) Plaintiff has presented no factual showing to support that Defendants’ counsel is not authorized to act on Defendants’ behalf in this action.

To the extent that Plaintiff cites to “Paramour v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 238 Cal.App.4th 1321 (2015)” to support this position, the Court was unable to locate any case of this name at this citation. Rather, the citation set forth in the Opposition correlates to People v. Gross (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1313, which addresses statutory restitution in a criminal matter. The Court could not locate any case with the title set forth by Plaintiff through a natural language search for case names in California. It appears that this is a fabrication. While the Court declines to begin the process of imposing sanctions at this time, the Court strongly cautions Plaintiff to take better care in making good-faith, legally sound arguments in the future. All citations submitted to the Court must be verified. Future submissions of fabricated authority may result in sanctions.