Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)

Citation: Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Parent Document: Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2014-01-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2650742/nativi-v-deutsche-bank-national... ↗

Full Text

2,102 chars

3
       The United States District Court, Northern District of California subsequently
determined that, by enacting the PTFA, "Congress did not intend to create a private right
of action remedy, but rather intended to provide tenants additional rights which could be
used in state court proceedings." (Nativi v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. (N.D. Cal.
May 26, 2010, No. 09–06096 PVT) 2010 WL 2179885, 4.) The court dismissed the
seventh cause of action (violation of the PTFA) (id. at pp. 1, 4-5) and "decline[d] to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims" and remanded the
matter to the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara. (Id. at p. 5.)
       On July 1, 2010, appellants filed a first amended complaint, which alleged
additional causes of action. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company demurred to the
first amended complaint on a number of grounds, most of which were overruled. The
trial court struck the seventh cause of action (violation of the PTFA) because the federal
court had dismissed it before remanding the case.
       On December 3, 2010, appellants filed a second amended complaint against
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, Deutsch Bank (as trustee), and AMHSI and
Does 3-10. It alleged nine causes of action against the named defendants: (1) wrongful
eviction in tort, (2) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment, (3) breach of implied
covenants of quiet enjoyment–tort, (4) illegal entry of landlord (violation of Civ. Code,
§ 1954), (5) illegal lockout (violation of Civi.Code, § 789.3), (6) unfair business practices
(Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200), (7) conversion, (8) trespass, and (9) declaratory and
injunctive relief (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 526 & 1060). Respondents filed an answer to that
complaint.
       In April 2011, respondents filed a motion for summary judgment, supporting
declarations, and a separate statement of undisputed material facts. They requested
judicial notice of the Trustee's Deed Upon Sale, recorded August 12, 2009, in the Santa
Clara County Recorder's Office and appellants' second amended complaint.

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text