Sheen v. FCI Lender Services, Inc. CA2/8
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Los Angeles County · No. BC631510
- Trial judge
- Patricia D. Nieto
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John S. Wiley (author), Maria E. Stratton
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
Filed 10/30/20 Sheen v. FCI Lender Services, Inc. CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION EIGHT
KWANG K. SHEEN, B297640 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC631510) v. FCI LENDER SERVICES, INC., Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Patricia D. Nieto, Judge. Affirmed. Los Angeles Center for Community Law and Action, Noah Grynberg, Tyler Anderson and Gina Hong for Plaintiff and Appellant. Blank Rome, Cheryl S. Chang and Jessica A. McElroy for Defendant and Respondent.
____________________ Last year, we ruled Wells Fargo Bank owed Kwang Sheen no tort duty during contract negotiations. (Sheen v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 346, review granted Nov. 13, 2019, S258019 (Sheen 1).) Now we have the same plaintiff and his same lawyer and their same second amended complaint against a different defendant in that same case: FCI Lender Services, Inc. (See Sheen 1, supra, 38 Cal.5th at p. 349, review granted.) The posture is different: Wells Fargo escaped on demurrer, while FCI won a summary judgment motion. But these differences are inessential: absent a tort duty, Sheen has no case. In Sheen 1 we sided with the cases ruling no such tort duty exists. (Id. at pp. 351–358.) We stand by that view, which controls this case pending resolution of the question by our Supreme Court. DISPOSITION We affirm the judgment and award costs to respondents.
WILEY, J.
We concur:
STRATTON, Acting P. J.
SALTER, J.* *Judge of the Orange Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.