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

Jeffrey S. Conrad 1719 Huntington Lane Redondo Beach, California 92708 Telephone (310) 985-0874 Facsimile (310) 861-5896 jsconrad1@gmail.com PLAINTIFF IN PRO PER SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SOUTHWEST DISTRICT ) ) ) ) vs. ) ) 1SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.; ) QUALITY LOAN SERVICES ) CORPORATION; MORTGAGE ) ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, ) INC; BANK OF AMERICA, NATIONAL ) ASSOCIATION, AS TRUSTEE FOR ) MORGAN STANLEY MORTGAGE LOAN ) TRUST 2006-16AX; ALL PERSONS ) UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR ) EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, ) LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY ) DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ) ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFFS TITLE, OR ) ANY CLOUD ON PLAINTIFFS TITLE ) THERETO; and DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE, ) ) DEFENDANTS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) JEFFREY S. CONRAD PLAINTIFF, Case No.: YC064735 Hon. Stuart M. Rice Dept. B PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR (1) WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE; (2) VIOLATION OF CAL. CIV. CODE 2923.5; (3) TO SET ASIDE TRUSTEES SALE; (4) TO VOID OR CANCEL TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE; (5) TO VOID OR CANCEL ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST; (6) BREACH OF CONTRACT; (7) PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUCTIVE RELIEF UNDER BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 17200 ET AL; AND (8) QUIET TITLE. Jury Trial Demanded

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 1

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

TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD HEREIN: Plaintiff hereby alleges as follows: PARTIES 1. Defendant Saxon Mortgage Services, Inc. (Saxon) is, and at all times herein

mentioned was, a Texas corporation, organized and existed under the laws of the State of California, doing business in Los Angeles County, California. 2. Defendant Quality Loan Services Corporation (QLSC), is a California

corporation with its principal place of business in San Diego County, California. 3. Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS) is a

Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Virginia. 4. Defendant Bank of America, National Association, as trustee for Morgan Stanley

Loan Trust 2006-16AX and All Persons Unknown, Claiming Any Legal Or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien, Or Interest In The Property Described In The Complaint Adverse To Plaintiffs Title, Or Any Cloud On Plaintiffs Title Thereto are sued herein pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 762.020(a). 5. Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities of the defendants sued

herein as DOES 1 through 20 (DOE Defendants), inclusive, and therefore sues said DOE Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based on such information and belief aver that each of the DOE Defendants is contractually, strictly, negligently, intentionally, vicariously liable and or otherwise legally responsible in some manner for the acts and omissions described herein. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to set forth the true names and capacities of each DOE Defendant when same are ascertained. 6. Plaintiff is informed and believe and based on such information and belief aver
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 2

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

that Defendants Saxon, QLSC, MERS, Bank of America and DOE Defendants 1 through 20, inclusive, and each of them, are and at all material times have been, the agents, servants or employees of each other, purporting to act within the scope of said agency, service or employment in performing the acts and omitting to act as averred herein. 7. Each of the Defendants named herein are believed to, and are alleged to have

been acting in concert with, as employee, agent, co-conspirator or member of a joint venture of, each of the other Defendants, and are therefore alleged to be jointly and severally liable for the claims set forth herein, except as otherwise alleged. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 8. On July 28, 2006, Plaintiff purchased certain real property commonly known as

(the Subject Property), located at 1719 Huntington Lane, Redondo, Beach, CA 90278, which has the following legal description: PARCEL A: A) AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN AND TO PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 060012, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 323 PAGES 25 AND 26 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT THEREFOREM UNITS 1 THROUGH 2 INCLUSIVE, AS DEFINED AND DELINEATED ON THE CONDOMINIMUM PLAN RECORDED MAY 10, 2004 AS INSTRUEMENT NO. 04-1163280, OFFICIAL RECORDS. B) UNIT 1 AS DEIFNED AND DELINEATED ON THE ABOVE REFERENCED CONDOMINIMUM PLAN. PARCEL B: AN EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT, APPURTENANT TO PARCEL A ABOVE, FOR ALL USES AND PURPOSES OF A YARD OVER AND ACROSS THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 060012 DEFINED AND DELINEATED AS EXCLUSIVE USE COMMON ARES, WHICH BEARS THE SAME NUMBER AS THE UNIT REFERRRED TO IN PARCEL A ABOVE FOLLOWEED BY THE LETTER Y ON THE ABOVE REFERENCED CONDOMINIMUM PLAN. PARCEL C:

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 3

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

AN EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT, APPURTENANT TO PARCEL A ABOVE, FOR ALL USES AND PURPOSES OF A DECK OVER AND ACROSS THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 060012 DEFINED AND DELINEATED AS EXCLUSIVE USE COMMON AREA, WHICH BEARS THE SAME NUMBER AS THE UNIT REFERRED TO IN PARCEL A ABOVE FOLLOWED BY THE LETTER D ON THE ABOVE REFERENCE CONDOMINIUM PLAN. 9. On or about July 28, 2006 Plaintiff obtained a loan from Zero Down Mortgage, a

division of Metrocities Mortgage, LLC (Metrocities) and a home equity line of credit (HELOC) from GMAC in the aggregate amount of $1,300,000 to purchase the Subject Property and executed a promissory note in favor of Metrocities for $975,000 (the Note) and promissory note in favor of GMAC for $325,000. The Note was secured by a deed of trust with the trustee being Fidelity National Loan Portfolio Solutions, a California corporation and MERS being the beneficiary under the deed of trust (the Deed of Trust). A true copy of the original Deed of Trust is attached as Exhibit A. 10. Plaintiff made each payment due on the loan, until the point of Plaintiffs

unemployment as further described herein. 11. On or about January 1, 2008 Plaintiff believes Saxon acquired the servicing rights

to Plaintiffs loan from Metrocities and continued to make his payments but now remitted them to Saxon. 12. On or about January 1, 2009, Plaintiff became unemployed and began falling

behind on his payments to Saxon and GMAC Mortgage, LLC. 13. On May 5, 2009 QLSC requested and recorded the Notice of Breach and Election

to Sell under the Deed of Trust as agent for the beneficiary MERS (attached hereto as Exhibit B and filed as a true and correct copy by both Defendants Bank of Americas counsel Severson & Werson, PLC and the other Defendants counsel, Pite Duncan, LLP, as Exhibit C to their respective Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrer to Complaint), which
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 4

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

apparently took place prior to the date and filing of the Substitution of Trustee, which took place on June 16, 2009 and substituted Fidelity National Loan Portfolio Solutions as trustee for QLSC, as further described in No. 15 below; 14. On June 1, 2009 an Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded by MERS as

nominee for Metrocities, which was purportedly executed by Bethany Hood, VP of MERS, on April 29, 2009 and notarized by Ashley Elizabeth Olson on May 22, 2009 (almost a month later), which assigned and transferred the Subject Property to LaSalle National Association, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-16AR. The Assignment of Deed of Trust is attached hereto as Exhibit C and filed as a true and correct copy by both Defendants Bank of Americas counsel Severson & Werson, PLC and the other Defendants counsel, Pite Duncan, LLP, as Exhibit C to their respective Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrer to Complaint. 15. On June 16, 2009 a Substitution of Trustee was recorded by Saxon Mortgage, as

attorney-in-fact for LaSalle National Association, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-16AR, which again was purportedly executed by Bethany Hood, AVP of Saxon, on May 4, 2009 and notarized by Christina Anne Sauerer on May 12, 2009 (almost eight days later). The Substitution of Trustee is attached hereto as Exhibit D and filed as a true and correct copy by Defendants counsel, Pite Duncan, LLP, as Exhibit D to their Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrer to Complaint. 16. The Assignment of Deed of Trust was not sent to Plaintiff and did not receive any

telephone calls or written correspondence from Saxon prior it filing the Notice of Breach and Election to Sell under the Deed of Trust. 17. On August 14, 2009 QLSC requested and recorded a Notice of Trustees Sale

against the Subject Property.

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 5

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

18.

On November 10, 2010, QLSC again requested and recorded a Notice of

Trustees Sale against the Subject Property. 19. Prior to their receipt of the Notice, Plaintiff did not receive any telephone calls or

written correspondence from Saxon. 20. Upon learning of the second Notice of Trustees Sale which was filed on August

14, 2009, Plaintiff was contacted by Saxon and Plaintiff attempted to apply for a loan modification on numerous occasions until the Subject Property was foreclosed on April 29, 2011. Plaintiff in fact applied for a loan modification on seven (7) different occasions prior to the foreclosure (September 2009, January 14, 2010; April 1, 2010; June 22, 2010; September 8, 2010; November 29, 2010; and January 14, 2011); whereby Plaintiff was told by representatives of Saxon that they did not receive the facsimile even though Plaintiff offered proof of the facsimiles receipt by Saxon, that Plaintiff did not submit all the requisite paper work and even that Plaintiff had been approved for a loan modification but did not call back within the requisite two (2) day period to receive the requested loan modification (even though the approval for loan modification call came from an unknown third-party, who left a voicemail but did not state they were related to Saxon), or that Plaintiff did not meet the requisite standards for a loan modification without being provided any reason for the denial and despite having been approved only several months earlier (in September of 2010). 21. On April 28, 2011, Plaintiff received a letter from Saxon stating that his loan

modification had been denied. 22. On April 29, 2011, the Subject Property was sold at a foreclosure auction without

any prior notice to Plaintiff from Saxon of its intent to proceed with a foreclosure action against the Subject Property. Plaintiff only learned of the foreclosure sale of the Subject Property when

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 6

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

a representative of the new owner delivered a letter personally to him at the address of the Subject Property. 23. Based upon information provided by Defendants counsels and belief, the

Trustees Sale is invalid because it took place with a forged and illegal Assignment of Deed of Trust and Substitution of Trustee, which are signed by the same individual, Bethany Hood, who is stated as being an Executive of both MERS and Saxon. Furthermore, in Koontz v. EverHome Mortgage and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Case No. 09-30024, Proc. No.3005, October 20, 2010, USBC, Northern District of Indiana, (South Bend Division) EverHome Mortgage (Everhome) and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), MERS admitted that Bethany Hood was not an employee of MERS, thus there are genuine issues of material facts that need to be discovered. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

24.

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1

through 23, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 25. On June 1, 2009 an Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded by MERS as

nominee for Metrocities, which was purportedly executed by Bethany Hood, VP of MERS, on April 29, 2009 and notarized by Ashley Elizabeth Olson on May 22, 2009 (almost a month later), which assigned and transferred the Subject Property to LaSalle National Association, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-16AR. The Assignment of Deed of Trust is attached hereto as Exhibit C and filed as a true and correct copy by both Defendants Bank of Americas counsel Severson & Werson, PLC and the other Defendants counsel, Pite Duncan, LLP, as Exhibit C to their respective Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrer to Complaint.
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 7

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

26.

On June 16, 2009 a Substitution of Trustee was recorded by Saxon Mortgage, as

attorney-in-fact for LaSalle National Association, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-16AR, which again was purportedly executed by Bethany Hood, AVP of Saxon, on May 4, 2009 and notarized by Christina Anne Sauerer on May 12, 2009 (almost eight days later). The Substitution of Trustee is attached hereto as Exhibit D and filed as a true and correct copy by Defendants counsel, Pite Duncan, LLP, as Exhibit D to their Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrer to Complaint. 27. Based upon documents provided by Defendants counsels and filed with this

Court and Plaintiffs belief, the Trustees Sale is invalid because it took place with an unauthorized, forged and illegal Assignment of Deed of Trust and Substitution of Trustee, which are signed by the same individual, Bethany Hood, who is stated as being an Executive of both MERS and Saxon. Furthermore, in Koontz v. EverHome Mortgage and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Case No. 09-30024, Proc. No.-3005, October 20, 2010, USBC, Northern District of Indiana, (South Bend Division), MERS admitted that Bethany Hood was not an employee of MERS. Thus, the Trustees sale of the subject property should be void. 28. In the case of a fraudulent transaction California law is settled. The Court in

Trout v. Trout, (1934), 200 Cal. 652 at 656 clearly state: Numerous authorities have established the rule that an instrument wholly void, such as an undelivered deed, a forged instrument, or a deed in blank, cannot be made the foundation of a good title, even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase. Consequently, the fact that defendant Archer acted in good faith in dealing with persons who apparently held legal title, is not in itself sufficient basis for relief." 29. Furthermore, this sentiment was clearly echoed in 6 Angles, Inc. v. Stuart-Wright

Mortgage, Inc. (2001), 85 Cal. App. 4th 1279 at 1285 where the Court Stated: it is the general
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 8

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

rule that courts have power to vacate a foreclosure sale where there has been fraud in the procurement of the foreclosure decree or where the sale has been improperly, unfairly or unlawfully conducted, or is tainted by fraud or where there has been such a mistake that to allow it to stand would be inequitable to purchaser and parties. Therefore, a forged robo-signed signature of Bethany Hood as shown in Exhibits C & D attached hereto (which were submitted to this Court as exhibits to Defendants respective demurrers by their counsel), which is admittedly a known robo-singer (Koontz v. EverHome Mortgage and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., Case No. 09-30024, Proc. No.-3005, October 20, 2010, USBC, Northern District of Indiana, (South Bend Division)), the Court in the instant case should be inclined to vacate the foreclosure sale of the Subject Property. 30. Additionally, in Bank of America v. La Jolla Group II (2005)129 Cal.App.4th 706 , 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 825, the California Court of Appeals held that if a trustee is not contractually empowered under a deed of trust to hold a sale, it is totally void. Voidness opposed to voidability, means that is without legal effect to begin with, whereby title does not transfer and the property is not sold. As demonstrated by the Exhibits B, C and D and the forgery of Exhibits C and D and the errant timeframe for filing such documents, QLSC was not contractually empowered as the trustee to hold a sale of the Subject Property. In essence, the recorded documents as set forth in Exhibits C and D are not recordable without good notarization. In California, the reason these documents are notarized in the first place is because otherwise they will not be accepted by the County recorder. Once the document is recorded, however, it is entitled to a presumption of validity, which is what spurned the falsification trend to begin with (see Civil Code Section 2924). Therefore, the notarization of a false signature not only constitutes fraud, but is also part of a larger conspiracy which has committed a multitude of frauds on our court system.
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 9

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. QLSC was not the lawful trustee and no authority to act on behalf of the beneficiary when unauthorized, forged and illegal Assignment of Deed of Trust and Substitution of Trustee were filed and recorded with the County Recorder, which purported to give QLSC such authority and therefore, it was unauthorized to initiate and carry out the foreclosure sale of the Subject Property on behalf of Saxon and its affiliates on April 29, 2011. 32. It should not be overlooked that the courts and the Attorney Generals of

numerous states, including Californias Attorney General, are investigating or have filed complaints for the very same acts that have been carried out in the instant case and against the very same Defendants. Furthermore, if Exhibits C and D are forged or otherwise unauthorized documents then it must be discovered whether other documents filed with this Court are forged or otherwise unauthorized documents. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 2923.5 (AGAINST DEFENDANTS QLSC, SAXON and DOES 1-20) 33. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1

through 32, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 34. California Civil 2923.5 (a) states: (1) A mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or

authorized agent may not file a notice of default pursuant to Section 2924 until 30 days after contact is made as required by paragraph (2) or 30 days after satisfying the due diligence requirements as described in subdivision (g). (2) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall contact the borrower in person or by telephone in order to assess the borrower's financial situation and explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. During the initial contact, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall advise the borrower that he or she has the right to request a subsequent meeting and, if requested, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall schedule the meeting to occur within 14 days. The assessment of the borrower's
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10

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

financial situation and discussion of options may occur during the first contact, or at the subsequent meeting scheduled for that purpose. In either case, the borrower shall be provided the toll-free telephone number made available by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency. Any meeting may occur telephonically. Saxon did not contact Plaintiff, either in person or by telephone, to discuss Plaintiff's financial condition and the impending foreclosure. Saxon did not call, it did not write, and it did not provide a toll-free HUD number to Plaintiff prior to filing the notice of default. In addition Saxon did not offer to meet with Plaintiff and did not advise him that Plaintiff had a right to request a subsequent meeting within 14 days. 35. California Civil Code 2923.5(g) states that a notice of default may be filed

pursuant to 2924 when a mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has not contacted a borrower provided that the failure to contact the borrower occurred despite the due diligence of the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent. Due diligence is defined in (g) as: (1) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall first attempt to contact a borrower by sending a first-class letter that includes the toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency. (2) (A) After the letter has been sent, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall attempt to contact the borrower by telephone at least three times at different hours and on different days. Telephone calls shall be made to the primary telephone number on file. (B) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent may attempt to contact a borrower using an automated system to dial borrowers, provided that, if the telephone call is answered, the call is connected to a live representative of the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent. (C) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent satisfies the telephone contact requirements of this paragraph if it determines, after attempting contact pursuant to this paragraph, that the borrower's primary telephone number and secondary telephone number or
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 11

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

numbers on file, if any, have been disconnected. (3) If the borrower does not respond within two weeks after the telephone call requirements of paragraph (2) have been satisfied, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall then send a certified letter, with return receipt requested. (4) The mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall provide a means for the borrower to contact it in a timely manner, including a toll-free telephone number that will provide access to a live representative during business hours. (5) The mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has posted a prominent link on the homepage of its Internet Web site, if any, to the following information: (A) Options that may be available to borrowers who are unable to afford their mortgage payments and who wish to avoid foreclosure, and instructions to borrowers advising them on steps to take to explore those options. (B) A list of financial documents borrowers should collect and be prepared to present to the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent when discussing options for avoiding foreclosure. (C) A toll-free telephone number for borrowers who wish to discuss options for avoiding foreclosure with their mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent. (D) The toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency. To Plaintiffs knowledge Saxon did none of the above. 36. Saxon and QLSC recorded the Notice of Default against the Subject Property in

the County Recorder's Office on May 5, 2009, which is attached hererto as Exhibit B. Stated in the Notice of Default is a Declaration of Compliance with California Civil Code 2923.5 executed by Aselmo Pagkaiiwangan on behalf of QLSC by LSI Title Company. However, QLSC nor LSI Title Company (whose relationship to QLSC is unknown to Plaintiff at this time) had any authority to file the Notice of Default since it was not appointed as an agent for the beneficiary which took place after the Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded by MERS on as nominee for Metrocities on June 1, 2009, which was purportedly executed by Bethany
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 12

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

Hood, VP of MERS, on April 29, 2009 and notarized by Ashley Elizabeth Olson on May 22, 2009 (almost a month later) under penalty of perjury, which assigned and transferred the Subject Property to LaSalle National Association, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-16A and after the Substitution of Trustee was recorded by Saxon Mortgage, as attorneyin-fact for LaSalle National Association, as Trustee for Morgan Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-16AR, on June 16, 2009, which again was purportedly executed by Bethany Hood, AVP of Saxon, on May 4, 2009 and notarized by Christina Anne Sauerer on May 12, 2009 (almost eight days later), under penalty of perjury. The Assignment of Deed of Trust is attached hereto as Exhibit C and filed as a true and correct copy by both Defendants Bank of Americas counsel Severson & Werson, PLC and the other Defendants counsel, Pite Duncan, LLP, as Exhibit C to their respective Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrer to Complaint. The Substitution of Trustee is attached hereto as Exhibit D and filed as a true and correct copy by Defendants counsel, Pite Duncan, LLP, as Exhibit D to their Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Demurrer to Complaint. 37. Aselmo Pagkaiiwangan and Bethany Hood either misrepresented the facts, if and

when they signed their respective documents, or they did not have personal knowledge of the matters when Aselmo Pagkaiiwangan asserted that Saxon attempted to contact Plaintiff as required by 2923.5. Since the contacts required by 2923.5 did not occur, and which are there face appear to be based on falsified documents, the foreclosure is illegal.

The Defendants failure to comply with California Civil Code 2923.5 greatly prejudiced the Plaintiffs rights of un-encombering the Subject Property or refinancing the Subject Property in that the Plaintiff was not properly noticed of the foreclosure pending on his property, which Plaintiff learned of through an unaffiliated third party.
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 13

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

38.

As a result of these wrongful acts and omissions, Plaintiff has been precluded

from properly curing any default in his mortgage and benefiting from the rights granted under California Civil Code 2923.5. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION TO SET ASIDE TRUSTEES SALE (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 39. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1

through 38, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 40. The Defendants never had the legal authority to foreclose, i.e., the authority to

exercise the power of sale as an assignee of Deed of Trust, because the Foreclosing Defendants interest was never acknowledged and recorded in violation of Civil Code 2932.5, resulting in the non-judicial foreclosure sale being void ab initio. 41. Moreover, the Foreclosing Defendants never had the legal authority to foreclose

because the instrument (Deed of Trust), which permitted foreclosure if the borrower was in default, is void as it was improperly assigned and/or transferred to the Defendants through forged and improperly notarized and unauthorized executed documents. Therefore, the Deed of Trust could not provide a basis for a foreclosure, and the non-judicial foreclosure is void ab initio. 42. Accordingly, Plaintiff hereby requests an order of this Court that the Trustees

Sale was irregular in that it was legally void and conducted without any right or privilege by the Defendants. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION TO VOID OR CANCEL TRUSTEES DEED UPON SALE (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 43. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1

through 42, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 14

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

44.

Although the trustees deed upon sale appears valid on its face, it is invalid, and

of no force and effect, for the reasons set forth above including, inter alia, the fact the Deed of Trust which purportedly secured the Note, which served as the basis for a claim to have the right to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure was at all times void due to the wrongful and improper assignment to the Defendants. 45. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order that the Trustees Deed Upon Sale is

void ab initio and cancelling such Trustees Deed. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION TO VOID OR CANCEL ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 46. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1

through 45, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 47. The assignment of the Deed of Trust is invalid, and of no force and effect, for the

reasons set forth above. Thus, the assignment of the Deed of Trust was at all times void. 48. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order that the Assignment of the Deed of Trust

is void ab initio and cancelling such Assignment. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT (AGAINST THE FORECLOSING DEFENDANTS)

49.

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1

through 48, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 50. 51. A mortgage is a contract pursuant to California Civil Code section 2920(a). On or about January 1, 2008, Plaintiff obtained a mortgage from Metrocities in

the principal amount of $975,000 for his primary residence located 1719 Huntington Lane, Redondo Beach, CA 90278 (the legal definition as provided herein), which Plaintiff is informed,
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 15

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

believes, and alleges that the Deed of Trust held by Metrocities was bought out, sold, transferred, reformed, or in some manor assumed by Saxon, which is a subsidiary of Morgan Stanley (which was purchased by Defendant bank of America). In accepting the assignment, despite the fraudulent nature of such assignment as alleged herein, Saxon as well as the other Defendants, obtained both the rights and obligation contained in said mortgage. As a result, a valid contract exists between Plaintiff and Saxon and as stated therein the contract shall be governed by California law. 52. Therefore, the Defendants were bound to act in accordance with California law

when initiating and consummating the foreclosure sale of the Subject Property. Specifically, the Defendants were bound to obey and conform their actions to California Civil Code Section 2934, which they clearly have not done in the instant case. 53. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' breach of contract, Plaintiff has

suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR PERLIMINARY AND PERMANT INJUNTIVE RELIEF UNDER CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTIONS 17200 ET SEQ. (AGAINST THE DEFENDANT METROCITIES AND FORECLOSING DEFENDANTS)

54.

Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1

through 53, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 55. Californias unfair competition statute, California Business & Professions Code

Section 17200, et seq., prohibits acts of unfair competition, which means and includes any fraudulent business act or practice . . . and conduct which is likely to deceive and is fraudulent within the meaning of Section 17200. This tripartite is disjunctive and the plaintiff need only allege one of the three theories to properly plead a claim under section 17200. Section 17200 was written broadly in order to allow courts maximum discretion to prohibit new schemes
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 16

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

to defraud. The statute provides that unfair competition includes unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising. 56. Defendants actions herein in violating California Civil Code Section 2934 by

making misrepresentations to the State of California are also business practices that are unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent under California Business & Professions Code Section 17200. 57. The above-described unfair practices injured Plaintiff in an amount which will be

proven at the time of trial. 58. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that the Defendants

performed the above mentioned acts for the purpose of injuring plaintiff and facilitating Plaintiff losing his home to foreclosure. Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants, unless restrained, will continue to engage in the above-described unfair business practices. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR QUIET TITLE (AS TO DEFENDANTS SAXON AND BANK OF AMERICA; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFFS TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD ON PLAINTIFFS TITLE THERETO; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20) 59. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1

through 58, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 60. Plaintiff is the equitable owner of the Subject Property (the legal description

which has been provided herein), which has the following legal description: 61. Plaintiff seeks to quiet title against the claims of Defendants Saxon and Bank of

America; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFFS TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD ON PLAINTIFFS
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 17

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

TITLE THERETO; and DOES 1 through 20 (collectively referred to herein as the Title Defendants). The Plaintiff believes that the Defendants securitized Plaintiffs mortgage loan and received funds equal to or in excess to the balance of the mortgage loan through proceeds garnered through the securitization(s) of the loan and insurance proceeds from credit default swaps, therefore, that the lawful beneficiary has been paid in full. 62. Defendants claims are adverse to Plaintiff because Plaintiff is informed or

believes that none of the defendants is a holder of the mortgage loan note, none of them can prove any interest in the mortgage loan note and none of them can prove that the mortgage loan note is secured by the Deed of Trust. As such, Defendants have no right, title, lien or interest in the Subject Property. 63. Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that the title to the Subject Property is vested

in Plaintiff alone and that the Title Defendants and each of them be declared to have no interest estate, right, title or interest in the subject property and that the Title Defendants, their agents and assigns, be forever enjoined from asserting any estate, right title or interest in the Subject Property subject to Plaintiffs rights. ) ) PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants and each of them, jointly and severally, as follows:
1.

For a declaration of the rights and duties of the parties, specifically that the foreclosure of Plaintiffs residence was wrongful.

2.

For exemplary and punitive damages in the sum of five million dollars ($5,000,000).
PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 18

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 proper.

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

For issuance of an Order canceling all Trustees Deed Upon Sale. To vacate the Trustees Deed. To vacate and set aside the foreclosure sale. To quiet title in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code 17203, 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 17200, including, but not limited to, the violations alleged herein. 8. For civil penalties pursuant to statute, restitution, injunctive relief and reasonable

attorneys fees according to proof. 9. For reasonable costs of suit and such other and further relief as the Court deems

DATED: October 21, 2011

JEFFREY S. CONRAD By: ____________________________ Jeffrey S. Conrad Plaintiff in Pro Per

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 19

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 Jeffrey Conrad declares:

VERFICATION

I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing First Amended Complaint and know its contents. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters that are alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed in Redondo Beach, California, On October 21, 2011.

________________________ Jeffrey S. Conrad

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 20

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 D C Exhibit A B

PLAINTIFFS EXHIBITS Description Deed of Trust Recorded as Instrument No. 061722602 Notice of Default Recorded as Instrument No. 20090654789 Assignment of Deed of Trust Recorded as Instrument No. 20090805059 Substitution of Trustee Recorded as Instrument No. 090899513

PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 21

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 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

PROOF OF SERVICE [C.C.P. 1013A(3)] ) ) )

ss:

I am employed in the County of Ventura, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and am not a party to the within action. My business address is One Amgen Center Drive, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. On January 9, 2012, I served the foregoing documents described as PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFFS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT & PLAINTIFFS OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: Pite Ducan, LLP Attn: Peter J Salmon, Christopher L. Peterson Natalie T. Nguyen 4375 Jutland Drive, Suite 200 P.O. Box 17935 San Diego, CA 92177-0935 X_ BY MAIL

I deposited such envelope into the mail at Redondo Beach, California. The envelope was mailed with postage prepaid is affixed with postage thereon fully prepaid and deposited with the U.S. Postal Service in Redondo Beach, California on the same day. I am aware that on motion of a party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or the postage meter date is more than one (1) day after the date of deposit for mailing in this affidavit. ___ BY PERSONAL SERVICE I hand delivered such envelope to the offices of the addressee(s) listed above. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed January 9, 2012 at Redondo Beach, California.

_____________________________ Ani Timourian

Proof of Service 1