1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`NELSON W. GOODELL, ESQ., SBN 264734
`The Goodell Law Firm
`27 Maiden Lane, Suite 600
`San Francisco, CA 94108
`(415) 495-3950 (office)
`(415) 495-3970 (fax)
`nelson@goodelllawsf.com
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`GEOFFREY LYNCH
`
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`04/05/2024
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: MARK UDAN
`Deputy Clerk
`
`IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`CGC-24-613682
`
`Case No.:
`
`GEOFFREY LYNCH
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; QUALITY
`LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION; JUSTIN
`LUU; XIAO PING WU; and DOES 1-20,
`inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`GEOFFREY LYNCH’S COMPLAINT
`FOR:
`
`
`1) VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL
`CODE § 2923.55
`2) VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL
`CODE § 2923.7
`3) VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL
`CODE § 2924.17
`4) VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL
`CODE § 3273.11
`5) WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE
`6) TRESPASS
`7) WRONGFUL EVICTION
`8) CONVERSION
`9) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION
`OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
`10) UNFAIR BUSINESS
`PRACTICES
`11) SLANDER OF TITLE
`12) QUIET TITLE
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, GEOFFREY LYNCH (“Plaintiff”), on information and belief, allege as follows:
`
`
`
`1
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`1. The Subject Property is a residence, owned by Plaintiffs, which is located at 2301 26th
`Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94116 (the “Subject Property”).
`JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS
`2. Plaintiff GEOFFREY LYNCH (“Plaintiff” or “Lynch”) is, and was at all times material
`to this Complaint, a resident of San Francisco, California.
`3. Defendant, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”), at all relevant times herein,
`was purportedly doing business in the State of California as a lender and/or loan servicer.
`4. Defendant, QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION (“Quality Loan” or “Quality
`Loan Service”), at all times relevant herein, has been an investor in mortgage loans in the
`State of California.
`5. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, JUSTIN LUU (“Luu”), at all
`times relevant herein, has been a citizen of the state of California.
`6. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, XIAO PING WU (“Wu”), at
`all times relevant herein, has been a citizen of the state of California.
`7. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
`CORPORATION, at all times relevant herein, has been a citizen of the state of California.
`8. The real property that is the subject of this action is commonly known as 2301 26th
`Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94116 (hereinafter, the “Subject Property”).
`9. Jurisdiction of this Court over the instant controversy is based upon Cal. Civ. Proc. § 88.
`10. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure§ 392(a) because the
`Subject Property is located within the jurisdictional region of this Court. Additionally,
`Defendant’s liability to Plaintiff arose in San Francisco County, California. Therefore, this
`Court has jurisdiction over all parties named herein.
`11. Venue is properly placed in San Francisco County, California, pursuant to Cal Civ. Proc.
`§ 392, because this action results from a dispute over a mortgage on real property located
`in San Francisco County. In addition, this action arises out of an offer or provision of a
`loan intended primarily for personal family or household use in San Francisco County,
`and the acts alleged in this Complaint occurred in San Francisco County.
`12. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of
`Defendants DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of them, are unknown to Plaintiff at
`
`2
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`this time, and Plaintiff therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs
`allege, on information and belief, that Doe Defendant is responsible for the actions herein
`alleged. Plaintiffs will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint when the names of
`said Doe Defendant have been ascertained.
`13. At all times mentioned herein, whenever an act or omission of a business entity is alleged,
`said allegation shall be deemed to mean and include an allegation that the business entity
`acted or omitted to act through its authorized officers, directors, agents, servants, and/or
`employees, acting within the course and scope of their duties, that the act or omission was
`authorized and/or ratified by the business entity.
`14. Plaintiff purchased Subject Property on August 16, 2017, and held title to the Property
`until the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale was recorded on March 17, 2023.
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`15. In July 2012, Governor Edmund Brown signed the California Homeowners Bill of Rights
`(“HBOR”) into law. The striking urgency of the factual findings by the California
`Legislature demonstrate how dire the current foreclosure crisis is. The Legislature found
`that “California is still reeling from the economic impacts of a wave of residential property
`foreclosures that began in 2007. From 2007 to 2011 alone, there were over 900,000
`completed foreclosure sales. In 2011, 38 of the top 100 hardest hit ZIP Codes in the Nation
`were in California, and the current wave of foreclosures continues apace. All of this
`foreclosure activity has adversely affected property values and resulted in less money for
`schools, public safety, and other public services. In addition, according to the Urban
`Institute, every foreclosure imposes significant costs on local governments, including an
`estimated nineteen thousand two hundred twenty-nine dollars ($19,229) in local
`government costs. And the foreclosure crisis is not over; there remain more than two
`million ‘underwater’ mortgages in California.”
`16. It is essential to the economic health of this state to mitigate the negative effects on the
`state and local economies and the housing market that are the result of continued
`foreclosures by modifying the foreclosure process to ensure that borrowers who may
`qualify for a foreclosure alternative are considered for, and have a meaningful opportunity
`to obtain, available loss mitigation options. These changes to the state’s foreclosure
`process are essential to ensure that the current crisis is not worsened by unnecessarily
`
`3
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`adding foreclosed properties to the market when an alternative to foreclosure may be
`available. Avoiding foreclosure, where possible, will help stabilize the state’s housing
`market and avoid the substantial, corresponding negative effects of foreclosures on
`families, communities, and the state and local economy. (Assem. Bill No. 278 (2011-2012
`Reg. Sess.), § 1 (subdivisions designations omitted).)
`17. The legislative history of Assembly Bill No. 278 recognized extensive “‘spillover’ costs”
`of “the foreclosure epidemic”: “By some estimates the foreclosure crisis will strip
`neighboring homeowners of $1.9 trillion in equity as foreclosures drain value from homes
`located near foreclosed properties by 2012. . . . Meanwhile, state and local governments
`continue to be hit hard by declining tax revenues coupled with increased demand for social
`services. In fact, the Urban Institute estimates that a single foreclosure costs $79,443 after
`aggregating the costs borne by financial institutions, investors, the homeowner, their
`neighbors, and local governments.” (Sen. Rules Com., Off. Of Sen. Floor Analyses,
`Conference Report on Assem. Bill No. 278 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.) June 27, 2012, pp. 14-
`15.)
`18. When a borrower is in danger of defaulting, a commonsense approach under a traditional
`mortgage would be for the lender and borrower to mutually agree to modify the terms of
`the loan . . . . [¶] Despite the apparent mutual interest of loan holders and borrowers, many
`distressed homeowners report obstacles when trying to obtain a loan modification or short-
`sale approval. (See e.g. ‘Loan Modifications Elude Local Homeowners,’ Sacramento Bee
`(January 17, 2011).) . . . . [¶] . . . [¶] Some analysts and leading economists have cited a
`failure by banks to provide loan modifications as a single reason that the foreclosure crisis
`continues to drag on.‖ (Sen. Floor Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 278 at pp. 15-16.)
`19. According to the legislative history, “borrowers can find their loss-mitigation options
`curtailed because of dual-track processes that result in foreclosures even when a borrower
`has been approved for a loan modification.” (Sen. Floor Analysis of Assem. Bill No. 278,
`pp. 20-21.)
`20. The same legislation provides homeowners who are facing foreclosure or whose homes
`have actually been lost to foreclosure with a remedy if the lender or loan servicer
`materially violated the provisions of the Act intentionally, recklessly, or through “willful
`misconduct.” (Assem. Bill No. 278, §§ 16 & 17, adding Civil Code, § 2924.12): those
`
`4
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`facing foreclosure may seek an injunction, while those who have lost their homes may
`seek treble actual damages or statutory damages of $50,000, whichever is greater.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`21. The real property that is the subject of this action is commonly known as 2301 26th
`Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94116.
`22. Plaintiff acquired titled through a Grant Deed recorded on August 16, 2017, as San
`Francisco County Recorder’s Office Document No. 2017-K49580-00. As part of the
`purchasing of the property, Plaintiff executed a first position Deed of Trust with Wells
`Fargo Bank, N.A. in the amount of $1,364,000.00 recorded on September 29, 2017, as
`San Francisco County Recorder’s Office Document No. 2017-K520541-00.
`23. Defendants recorded a Notice of Default on August 15, 2022, as San Francisco County
`Recorder’s Office Document No. 2022077602, stating the amount of default was
`$273,468.70.
`24. Defendants recorded a Notice of Trustee’s Sale on December 1, 2022, as San Francisco
`County Recorder’s Office Document No. 2022108349, stating that the total amount due
`was $1,568,372.63.
`25. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has lost his home, as a result of his wrongful eviction
`following the wrongful foreclosure, along with general damages.
`26. Further, Plaintiff is entitled to an order setting aside the foreclosure sale and restoring title
`to Mr. Lynch’s name, in addition to other remedies demanded below.
`27. On February 5, 2020, around the date Defendants executed the declaration attached to the
`Notice of Default, agents of Wells Fargo drilled through the locks of the front door,
`installed an interior latch to the garage door, shut off the water for the entire Subject
`Property, stuck stickers on the toilets in the Subject Property, applied non-toxic anti-freeze
`in the Subject Property, and applied automotive cooling throughout the Subject Property.
`28. At the time of this unlawful entry, the Plaintiff was the sole owner of the subject property
`and occupied the subject property.
`29. On this point, Plaintiff never gave Defendant or anyone else his permission for their
`entrance and alterations to Plaintiff’s property.
`30. The unconsented entrance and alterations to Plaintiff's property caused substantial harm
`to Plaintiff.
`
`5
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`31. Indeed, the damages caused by Wells Fargo’s agents prevented the Plaintiff from
`obtaining different financing on the home as well and caused the Plaintiff severe
`emotional distress.
`32. Plaintiff entered into a forbearance in March 2020, pursuant to the COVID-19 pandemic
`that provided a temporary pause of payments. Plaintiff’s forbearance ended after sixth
`months in September 2020, and Plaintiff should have been offered the proper post-
`forbearance alternative then.
`33. Applicable federal guidance at that time for federally backed mortgages permitted
`borrowers to be able to pay said forbore sums at the time that the house was sold, or the
`loan was matured.
`34. Nonetheless, Wells Fargo refused to permit the Plaintiff to forbear these sums and
`continues to demand that the Plaintiff pay said sums to this day.
`35. It was not until the past several months that the Plaintiff realized that this was improper,
`and that he had a right to forbear these sums.
`36. Plaintiff did not have access to individuals who were able to accurately inform Plaintiff
`of the status of his foreclosure prevention alternatives, did not adequately inform of his
`various foreclosure prevention alternatives, and did not keep him properly informed of the
`foreclosure proceedings.
`37. On August 15, 2022, Defendant Quality Loan Service Corporation recorded the instant
`Notice of Default. For its part, this recordation of this Notice in spite of the foregoing
`violations of the Homeowners Bill of Rights render Quality Loan liable for the substantial
`the Plaintiff have suffered, including the lack of offer for further COVID-19 forbearance.
`38. Indeed, the Notice of Default stated that Plaintiff was contacted to discuss options to avoid
`foreclosure. However, this never happened.
`39. The Notice of Trustee’s Sale was recorded on December 1, 2022, as San Francisco County
`Recorder’s Office Document No. 2022108349, stating that the total amount due was
`$1,568,372.63, and the foreclosure sale occurred on March 17, 2023, all without Plaintiff’s
`knowledge.
`40. Plaintiff continued to live in the subject property and did not vacate said property.
`41. Thereafter, on or about, March 17, 2023, Wells Fargo apparently sold the Subject Property
`to Justin Luu. To Plaintiff's knowledge, Justin Luu never saw the interior of the Subject
`
`6
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Property as Plaintiff maintained possession the entire time and did not let anyone else into
`the property.
`42. Thus, the status of possessions of the property was inconsistent with record title, which
`was in Wells Fargo's names at that point.
`43. The Plaintiff remained in actual possession of the subject property at all times until the
`subject property apparently was sold to Justin Luu on August 10, 2023.
`44. As the Court ruled in Asisten v. Underwood, "i is a general rule that possession of real
`property is constructive notice to any intending purchaser or encumbrancer of the property
`of all the rights and claims of the person in possession which would be disclosed by
`inquiry. (Pell v. McElroy, 36 Cal. 268, 272.)"
`45. Mr. Luu never sought to inquire with Plaintiff the status of his rights, title, or interest in
`the property or inquire as to his knowledge bout the foreclosure or lack of propriety thereof.
`Rather, he surreptitiously purchased the subject property from Wells Fargo without ever
`speaking with Plaintiff and without, apparently, ever inspecting the interior of the subject
`property. As such, neither Mr. Luu nor Ms. Wu are bona fide purchasers for value. On
`this point, it is Plaintiff's understanding that Xiao Ping Wu did not pay any consideration
`for their interest in the property.
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violations of Civil Code section 2923.55
`(Against WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
`CORPORATION)
`46. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though fully set forth
`herein.
`47. Plaintiff alleges that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. violated Civil Code Section 2923.5 by failing
`to contact Plaintiff, in person or by telephone, at least thirty days to explore the “traditional”
`options for Plaintiff to avoid foreclosure, such as a repayment plan, a forbearance
`agreement or a “short sale.” Plaintiff further alleges that none of Defendants exercised
`“due diligence” in attempting to do so, as he did not receive any certified letters asking
`him to contact any of these three Defendants to regarding his options to avoid foreclosure.
`48. As a result of Wells Fargo's failure to meet and confer and discuss his options to avoid
`foreclosure, the Plaintiff lost his long-time home. Had they simply complied with federal
`
`7
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`guidelines and permitted him to resume making payments without having to pay the
`arrearage in a lump sum, he could have done so.
`49. As a result, the Plaintiff is entitled to general and special damages, treble damages due to
`Wells Fargo's intentional and/or reckless conduct, which also resulted from willful
`misconduct.
`50. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgement as set forth below.
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violations of Civil Code section 2923.7
`(Against WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.)
`51. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though fully set forth
`herein.
`52. Civil Code section 2923.7 provides:
`Upon request from a borrower who requests a foreclosure prevention alternative,
`the mortgage servicer shall promptly establish a single point of contact and provide
`to the borrower one or more direct means of communication with the single point
`of contact.
`(b) The single point of contact shall be responsible for doing all of the
`following:
`(1) Communicating the process by which a borrower may apply for
`an available foreclosure prevention alternative and the deadline for
`any required submissions to be considered for these options.
`(2) Coordinating receipt of all documents associated with available
`foreclosure prevention alternatives and notifying the borrower of
`any missing documents necessary to complete the application.
`(3) Having access to current information and personnel sufficient to
`timely, accurately, and adequately inform the borrower of the
`current status of the foreclosure prevention alternative.
`(4) Ensuring that a borrower is considered for all foreclosure
`prevention alternatives offered by, or through, the mortgage
`servicer, if any.
`(5) Having access to individuals with the ability and authority to
`stop foreclosure proceedings when necessary.
`(c) The single point of contact shall remain assigned to the borrower s
`account until the mortgage servicer determines that all loss mitigation
`options offered by, or through, the mortgage servicer have been exhausted
`or the borrower s account becomes current.
`(d) The mortgage servicer shall ensure that a single point of contact refers
`and transfers a borrower to an appropriate supervisor upon request of the
`borrower, if the single point of contact has a supervisor.
`
`
`8
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`53. Plaintiff did not have access to individuals who were able to accurately inform Plaintiff
`of the status of his foreclosure prevention alternative.
`54. Indeed, the Notice of Default stated that Plaintiff was contacted to discuss options to avoid
`foreclosure. However, this never happened.
`55. As a result of Wells Fargo's failure to meet and confer and discuss his options to avoid
`foreclosure, the Plaintiff lost his long-time home. Had they simply complied with federal
`guidelines and permitted him to resume making payments without having to pay the
`arrearage in a lump sum, he could have done so.
`56. Rather than consider him for said available foreclosure prevention alternatives, Wells
`Fargo recorded a Notice of Default on August 15, 2022, a Notice of Trustee’s Sale on
`December 1, 2022, and a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale on March 17, 2023.
`57. As a result, the Plaintiff is entitled to general and special damages, treble damages due to
`Wells Fargo's intentional and/or reckless conduct, which also resulted from willful
`misconduct.
`58. Wells Fargo violated Civil Code section 2923.7 in a number of ways. As an initial matter,
`Wells Fargo violated the statutory requirement to “ensure that a borrow is considered for
`all foreclosure prevention alternatives offered by, or through, the mortgage servicer, if
`any.” As plead earlier, the Plaintiff attempted to have a forbearance that would have
`permitted him to forbear his arrearages when the loan matured and/or the house was sold
`but was not permitted an opportunity to do so. Moreover, Defendants repeatedly failed to
`consider the Plaintiff for a loan modification even after being provided with detailed
`information again and again.
`59. In addition, Wells Fargo violated the statute’s requirements to have “access to individuals
`with the ability and authority to stop foreclosure proceedings when necessary”, as the
`foreclosure went forward without the Plaintiff being considered for all available
`foreclosure prevention alternatives, as described herein.
`60. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgement as set forth below.
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violations of Civil Code section 2924.17
`(Against WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. and QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
`CORPORATION)
`
`9
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`61. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though fully set forth
`herein.
`62. Civil Code § 2924.17 provides:
`(a) A declaration recorded pursuant to Section 2923.5 or pursuant to Section
`2923.55, a notice of default, notice of sale, assignment of a deed of trust, or
`substitution of trustee recorded by or on behalf of a mortgage servicer in
`connection with a foreclosure subject to the requirements of Section 2924,
`or a declaration or affidavit filed in any court relative to a foreclosure
`proceeding shall be accurate and complete and supported by competent and
`reliable evidence.
`(b) Before recording or filing any of the documents described in subdivision
`(a), a mortgage servicer shall ensure that it has reviewed competent and
`reliable evidence to substantiate the borrower’s default and the right to
`foreclose, including the borrower’s loan status and loan information.
`(c) Any mortgage servicer that engages in multiple and repeated
`uncorrected violations of subdivision (b) in recording documents or filing
`documents in any court relative to a foreclosure proceeding shall be liable
`for a civil penalty of up to seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) per
`mortgage or deed of trust in an action brought by a government entity
`identified in Section 17204 of the Business and Professions Code, or in an
`administrative proceeding brought by the Department of Financial
`Protection and Innovation or the Department of Real Estate against a
`respective licensee, in addition to any other remedies available to these
`entities.
`
`63. On August 15, 2022, Wells Fargo “inaccurately and incompletely” recorded the Notice of
`Default, as San Francisco County Recorder’s Office Document No. 2022077602. As such,
`the Plaintiff was substantially overcharged in the Notice of Default that erroneously
`included arrearages. The document was not "accurate nor complete", nor was it supported
`by "competent and reliable evidence".
`64. In fact, the Notice of Default that materially overcharged the Plaintiff and erroneously
`included arrearages in the Default, continues to be of record and threatens the Plaintiff
`with the loss of their home via nonjudicial foreclosure. As such, the Plaintiff is entitled to
`an injunction to rescind the Notice of Default.
`65. As a result of Wells Fargo's failure to meet and confer and discuss his options to avoid
`foreclosure, the Plaintiff lost his long-time home. Had they simply complied with federal
`guidelines and permitted him to resume making payments without having to pay the
`arrearage in a lump sum, he could have done so.
`
`10
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`66. As a result, the Plaintiff is entitled to general and special damages, treble damages due to
`Wells Fargo's intentional and/or reckless conduct, which also resulted from willful
`misconduct.
`67. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgement as set forth below.
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Violations of Civil Code section 3273.11
`(Against WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.)
`68. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though fully set forth
`herein.
`69. As stated above, the Plaintiff entered into a forbearance in March 2020, pursuant to the
`COVID-19 pandemic
`that provided a
`temporary pause of payments. Plaintiff’s
`forbearance ended after sixth months in September 2020, and Plaintiff should have been
`offered the proper post-forbearance alternative then.
`70. Applicable federal guidance at that time for federally backed mortgages permitted
`borrowers to be able to pay said forbore sums at the time that the house was sold, or the
`loan was matured.
`71. Nonetheless, Wells Fargo refused to permit the Plaintiff to forbear these sums and
`continues to demand that the Plaintiff pay said sums to this day.
`72. It was not until the past several months that the Plaintiff realized that this was improper,
`and that he had a right to forbear these sums. It was reasonable for Plaintiff to not realize
`this at this time since he is a layperson with no special training in mortgage servicing
`and/or foreclosure.
`73. As such, the Plaintiff is entitled to have the foreclosure sale rescinded, an injunction, actual
`damages, and other relief, pursuant to Civil Code section 3273.15.
`74. As a result, the Plaintiff is entitled to general and special damages, punitive damages due
`to Wells Fargo's intentional and/or reckless conduct, which also resulted from willful
`misconduct.
`75. In addition, the Plaintiff alleges that a managing agent and/or officer and/or director at
`Wells Fargo ratified the malicious conduct described herein. As such, the Plaintiff is
`entitled to punitive damages against Wells Fargo for said misconduct.
`76. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgement as set forth below.
`
`11
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Wrongful Foreclosure
`(Against All Defendants)
`77. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though fully set forth
`herein.
`78. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that, at the time of the recordation of the Notice
`of Trustee’s Sale on December 1, 2022, the Defendants had charged Plaintiff at least
`$1,568,372.63.
`79. By conducting a sale in direct violation of statutory law and other common law principles
`designed to prevent foreclosure, Defendants Wells Fargo and Qualified Loan Service
`Corporation, are liable for wrongful foreclosure under the common law of California.
`80. As a result of the foregoing, Plaintiff has lost his home, as a result of his wrongful eviction
`following the wrongful foreclosure, along with general damages.
`81. Further, Plaintiff is entitled to an order setting aside the foreclosure sale and restoring title
`to Mr. Lynch’s name, in addition to other remedies demanded below. As such, the Plaintiff
`is entitled to an equitable order that Justin Luu and Xiao Ping Wu are the not rightful
`owners of the property, and that the Plaintiff is the rightful owner of said property.
`82. In addition to making matters worse, Wells Fargo, after the unlawful trespass and
`wrongful eviction, continued to send property inspectors to Plaintiff's home and
`improperly charged the Plaintiff for same during the COVID-19 pandemic, even though
`federal regulations prohibited this practice.
`83. In addition, the Plaintiff alleges that a managing agent and/or officer and/or director at
`Wells Fargo ratified the malicious conduct described herein. As such, the Plaintiff is
`entitled to punitive damages against Wells Fargo for said misconduct.
`84. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgement as set forth below.
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Trespass
`(Against WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.)
`85. Plaintiff re-allege and incorporate all preceding paragraphs, as though fully set forth
`herein.
`
`12
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`86. On February 5, 2020, around the date Defendants executed the declaration attached to the
`Notice of Default, agents of Wells Fargo drilled through the locks of the front door,
`installed an interior latch to the garage door, shut off the water for the entire Subject
`Property, stuck stickers on the toilets in the Subject Property, applied non-toxic anti-freeze
`in the Subject Property, and applied automotive cooling throughout the Subject Property.
`87. At the time of this unlawful entry, the Plaintiff was the sole owner of the subject property
`and occupied the subject property.
`88. On this point, Plaintiff never gave Defendant or anyone else his permission for their
`entrance and alterations to Plaintiff’s property.
`89. The unconsented entrance and alterations to Plaintiff's property caused substantial harm
`to Plaintiff.
`90. Indeed, the damages caused by Wells Fargo’s agents prevented the Plaintiff from
`obtaining different financing on the home as well and caused the Plaintiff severe
`emotional distress.
`91. Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress and other general damages as a result of the
`Defendants’ reckless disregard for the safety of Plaintiff at his home.
`92. Plaintiff was not aware of Defendants’ plans to the above-mentioned actions until they
`occurred. Defendants did not communicate with Plaintiff before these actions.
`93. In addition to making matters worse, Wells Fargo, after the unlawful trespass and
`wrongful eviction, continued to send property inspectors to Plaintiff's home and
`improperly charged the Plaintiff for same during the COVID-19 pandemic, even though
`federal regulations prohibited this practice.
`94. At the time, Wells Fargo’s agents claimed that they had a right to, due to certain provisions
`in the Deed of Trust. Being a layperson and not sophisticated in legal affairs and/or
`mortgage contracts, the Plaintiff relied upon this representation and did not realize that
`this was not accurate. As such, it was reasonable for the Plaintiff to not file this action
`until today.
`95. In addition, the Plaintiff alleges that a managing agent and/or officer and/or director at
`Wells Fargo ratified the malicious conduct described herein. As such, the Plaintiff is
`entitled to punitive damages against Wells Fargo for said misconduct.
`96. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray for judgement as set forth below.
`
`13
`PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Wrongful Eviction
`(Against WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.)
`97. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all preceding paragraphs, as though fully set forth
`herein.
`98. Plaintiff’s property was sold at the trustee’s sale to Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
`and Quality Loan, and the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale was recorded as San Francisco
`County Recorder’s Office Document No. 2023019957 on March 17, 2023.
`99. At the time of the sale, Plaintiff was living in the Property, and, as such, all of his
`possessions and appliances were located within the Property.
`However, before recording the Notice of Default, without filing any sort of
`100.
`unlawful detainer action, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A locked the Plaintiff out of his
`home on February 5, 2020.
`On February 5, 2020, around the date Defendants executed the declaration
`101.
`attached to the Notice of Default, agents of Wells Fargo drilled through the locks of the
`front door, installed an interior latch to th