c

Rene Leonth
c 811 E. 74 St
Los Angeles, CA 90001
c Ph. (323) 582-0246
c In Pro Per
The Superior Court of California,
c County of Los Angeles
Los Angeles Central District,
c Stanley Mosk Courthouse
c
) Case No.: 10U13492
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as )
c
) CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

c Indenture trustee, for the benefit of the holders ) AND EQUITABLE RELIEF TO
of the Aames Mortgage Investment Trust ) UNLAWFUL DETAINER
c 2005-4 Mortgage backed Notes, its successors ) 1.c TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
and/or assignees, ) AND PRELIMINARY AND
c )
) PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
c Plaintiff )
) 2.c FRAUD AND MISREPRESANTATION
c ) UNDER THE TRUTH-IN-LENDING
vs. ) ACT 15 USC § 1601, Regulation Z; 12
c ) CFR § 226;
)
c )
Rene Leon, ) 3.c VIOLATION OF RESPA ± 12 U.S.C.
c ) †2601 et seq.;
Defendant )
c ) 4.c CALIFORNIA ROSENTHAL ACT;
)
 c ) 5.c QUIET TITLE;
)

c )
Rene Leon, Cross- Complainants ) 6.c WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE;
c )
v. ) 7.c SLANDER OF TITLE
c Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as )
Indenture trustee, for the benefit of the holders ) 8.c CIVIL CONSPIRACY
c
of the Aames Mortgage Investment Trust )
)
c 2005-4 Mortgage backed Notes, its successors ) 9.c UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ±
and/or assigns, ) CALIFORNIA BUSINESS &
c ) PROFESSIONS CODE † 17200
)
c ) 10.cIMPOSITION OF CONSTRUCTIVE
Cross-Defendants )
c ) TRUST
)
c ) 11. FRAUD
)
 c )
)

c

Ê


 
ccc
 c

c I.
c CROSS-COMPLAINT
c COMES NOW, RENE LEON, an individual in Propria Persona, to submit to the Court their
c Cross-Complaint as follows:
c

c JURISDICTION AND VENUE:

c Defendant¶s claims for monetary and declaratory relief are brought pursuant to

c California common law.

c Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 12 U.S.C. §2614, 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343, and
c 2201. The Court has supplement jurisdiction over the state law claims alleged in this complaint
c pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Declaratory relief is authorized under §28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
c 2202.
c Venue in this Court is proper under 20 U.S.C. §1391(b) because a substantial part of
c the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the County of Los Angeles, State of
c California and some Plaintiff s reside or conduct business in the County of Los Angeles. Venue
c is proper in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California.
 c


c

c PARTIES:
1. Defendant, RENE LEON, was the owner in fee and title and resides at 811 E. 74th St,
c
Los Angeles, CA, 90001, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF
c
CALIFORNIA, hereinafter referred to as the ³PROPERTY´.
c
2. Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon allege, that Plaintiff, Deutsche Bank
c
National Trust Company, as Indenture trustee, for the benefit of the holders of the Aames
c
Mortgage Investment Trust 2005-4 Mortgage backed Notes (hereinafter "DBNTC") is a
c national banking institution whose exact business form is unknown and at all times
c mentioned herein was conducting business in California.
 c 3. Defendant is informed and believes that Plaintiff, DBNTC is the owner of the Mortgage

c Loan.

Ê


 
ccc
 c

4. Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon allege, that Plaintiff DBNTC is a
c
wholly owned subsidiary of DBNTC and at all times mentioned herein was conducting
c
business in California.
c
5. Defendant is informed and believes that JP MORGAN CHASE BANK is the servicer of
c
the Mortgage Loan.
c
6. Plaintiffs is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that CALIFORNIA
c RECONVEYANCE as original Trustee, whose exact business form is unknown and at all
c times mentioned herein was conducting business in California.

c 7. Defendant is informed and believes that QUALITY LOAN SERVICING COMPANY is

c the subsequent trustee of the Mortgage Loan and an agent of Federal Home Loan

c
Mortgage.

c

c 8. DOES 1 THROUGH 10 are persons or entities unknown to Defendant. Their capacities
c are unknown. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is in some way involved in the actions
c complained of herein as either independent actors, or as agents or principals of the other
c unnamed Plaintiffs. Defendant reserves the right to amend this complaint to allege their
c true identities, capacities and roles as and when they are ascertained.
 c


c FACTS
c This action is brought on behalf of Defendant RENE LEON, an individual in Propria
c Persona, who purchased the property at issue in this case, executing a Fixed Rate Mortgage with
c lender WASHINGTON MUTUAL, N.A., on November 28, 2007 (See Exhibit ³A´). The Trustee
c on the original Deed was California Reconveyance Company.
c On February 9, 2010, Plaintiffs¶ recorded a Notice of Default, recorded in by Los
c Angeles County Recorder¶s Office, instrument number 20100210-00018893-0(See Exhibit ³B´).
c Attached to the Notice of Default was the California Declaration exemption statement of
c Clement J. Durkin, dated February 8, 2010, from JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, NATIONAL
 c ASSOCIATION ( hereinafter referred to as ³JP MORGAN¶).

c

Ê


 
ccc
 c

The next document to be recorded was on March 24, 2010, JP MORGAN acting
c
as the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust, recorded a Substitution of Trustee from CALIFORNIA
c
RECONVEYANCE COMPANY to QUALITY LOAN SERVICING COMPANY as the new
c
Trustee, Ventura County Recorder Document number 20100324-00045262-0 (See attached
c
Exhibit ³C´). The Affidavit of Mailing for the Substitution of Trustee by Code was signed, but
c
not notarized by Ester Pollarco.
c

c
On May 13, 2010, QUALITY LOAN SERVICING COMPANY, as Trustee recorded
with the Ventura County Recorder¶s Office, instrument number 20100513-00071775, a Notice of

c
Trustee¶s Sale, for June 2, 2010.
c

c The next recorded document, the Assignment of Deed of Trust, was recorded with the
c Ventura County Recorder¶s Office, instrument number 20100902-00132058, on September 9,
c 2010, shows CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE COMPANY as the Trustee assigning the

c beneficiary interest from JP MORGAN CHASE to FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE

c
CORPORATION. There was no other Substitution of Trustee recorded after the initial
substitution of Trustee was recorded on March 24, 2010. CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE
c
COMPANY had no authority to assign or transfer the beneficial interest over to DBNTC based
c
on its last recorded document showing
 c


c
QUALITY LOAN SERVICING COMPANY as the acting Trustee
c
On September 25, 2008, JPMorgan Chase bought most of the banking operations of
c
Washington Mutual from the receivership of the FDIC. That night, the Office of Thrift
c
Supervisionëcin what was by far the largest bank failure in American history, had seized
c
Washington Mutual Bank and placed it into receivership. Defendant believes that due to the
c
merger and acquisition, neither JP MORGAN or DBNTC could have received the original
c
documents from Washington Mutual Bank and therefore not holding the original Note.
c
On the Declaration of Compliance (See Exhibit ³B´), Mr. Durkin checked the box
c
stating that he there was compliance under C.C.P. section 2924, and that he was merely acting as
 c
an agent with information related to him by another third party that there was due diligence

c
without actually having first -hand knowledge himself. Mr. Durkin did not state the efforts made
c

Ê


 
ccc
 c

either by phone or mail to contact the Defendant as required under C.C.C. §2923.5. If JP
c
MORGAN had made contact with the Defendant, there should have been a certified receipt of
c
service for the mailing, or a phone log of the efforts made to contact the Defendant. The court is
c
relying on Plaintiffs¶ complaint as proof that they have complied with the required code sections
c
under 2924 C.C.P., instead of providing any other evidence whatsoever as to their efforts made.
c
As a representative of JP MORGAN, Mr. Durkin had no authority to sign based on third-hand
c information from JP MORGAN representatives. The witness (Mr. Durken) attesting to this
c information must be competent person who takes an oath, has personal knowledge regarding the

c content of the document, states that personal knowledge and whose testimony conforms to what
c is on the document.

c
As noted in USA TODAY 10/15/2010, Workers who processed tens of thousands of
c
mortgage foreclosure papers portrayed their jobs as assembly-line work that required them to
c
sign off on documents without reviewing them.
c
Several lawsuits from across the country have been filed because of the these so-called
c
³robo signers,´ which recently released depositions from other lawsuits revealed some
c
mortgage-servicer employees admitting to signing off on thousands of foreclosure documents a
c
month without giving them proper review.
 c


c
In a separate deposition, a foreclosure supervisor for Litton Loan Servicing in Houston
c could not define the terms "promissory note," "mortgagee," "lien" or "circuit court," even though
c those terms were on foreclosure papers she had signed. Litton is a mortgage-servicing company,
c which collects mortgage payments and forwards them to the mortgage holders.
c
The California Corporations Code requires entities that ³transact intrastate business´ in
c
California to acquire a ³certificate of qualification´ from the California Secretary of State. Cal.
c
Corp. Code § 2105(a)xcc
c
c
c

 c


c

Ê


 
ccc
 c

c REQUEST FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

c Immediate injunctive relief is warranted in this action because Defendant expects to be
c evicted from their home. Defendant contends that the foreclosure sale itself should be set aside,
c for the reasons set forth in the instant Complaint.
c If injunctive relief is not immediately granted, and Defendant is not allowed the
c opportunity to reasonably reinstate his loan, Defendant may be evicted from his home before the
c Court has the opportunity to adjudicate the issues raised herein, and he would thus be deprived of

c any adequate remedy for the wrongs committed by Plaintiff. Moreover, if Defendant were forced
c to move from his home, it would subject his to the irreparable harm of public humiliation and
c loss of reputation in the community in which he lives and works. If subsequent eviction
c proceeds, Defendant does not know where he would live and could be out on the street. Given
c the fact that at every stage of these events, from the loan origination to the foreclosure sale,
c Plaintiff s have misled Mr. Salazar and acted to his detriment, and given the fact that Mr. Salazar
c contends that DBNTC has no right to foreclose on the Property, any subsequent action brought
c by any of the Plaintiff s will essentially be fraudulent upon the court.
c The Property is unique. Therefore, should the requested injunctive relief not be granted,
 c Defendant will suffer irreparable injury for which this is not adequate remedy in law when he is

c forcibly evicted from his home and DBNTC proceeds to sell the Property to a third party, who
c may then be a bona fide purchaser for value, causing the Property to be lost to Plaintiff forever.
c

c After execution of the original Note was signed by Defendant, Plaintiffs used the
c signature to obtain an advance to fund the loan by selling the Note on the open market for money
c in this transaction. Plaintiffs applied these monies to create a double book entry which satisfied
c the debt created by the Note, turning it into an asset.
c Defendants used this asset to strengthen the financial security of their company without
c consideration to the borrower. Furthermore, in an effort to conspire to gain unjust enrichment, JP
 c MORGAN CHASE, granted through unlawful sale, transfer or unrecorded assignment rights to

c the fully paid Note to its subsidiary, Plaintiff, DBNTC.
c

Ê


 
ccc
 c

c Since Plaintiff continuously conspired to acquire unjust enrichment, an arm¶s length

c transfer to an unknown trustee was made to facilitate the foreclosure on their behalf. Defendants
c contends that Plaintiff, DBNTC, and agencies unknown to Plaintiff s¶ moved to conduct a
c foreclosure auction sale to purchase the same collateral paper that had been in their pool since its
c origination. As it now stands, Defendants alleges as follows:
c

c FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

c FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION UNDER

c THE TRUTH-IN-LENDING ACT 15 USC † 1601, Regulation Z; 12 CFR † 226
c

c Defendants incorporates the paragraphs above and hereby alleges as follows: Defendants
c further alleges on information and belief that Plaintiff, and each of them, in so acting in this case
c and with respect to numerous other mortgages or Deed of Trust security instruments engage in a
c pattern and practice of utilizing the non-judicial foreclosure procedures of California to foreclose
c on properties when they do not have the right to do so. On information and belief, Defendants
c alleges that Plaintiff engaged in this practice relying on the assumption that the property owners
 c affected generally do not have the legal or financial wherewithal to contest the right of Plaintiff

c to foreclose.
c Under California law, to perfect the transfer of mortgage paper as collateral the owner
c should physically deliver the note to the transferee. è







., 829
c F.2d 705, 709 (9th Cir. 1986). Without physical transfer, the sale of the note could be invalid as a
c fraudulent conveyance, Cal. Civ. Code §3440, or as unperfected, Cal. Com. Code §§9313-9314.
c See ROGER BERNHARDT, CALIFORNIA MORTGAGES AND DEEDS OF TRUSTS, AND
c FORECLOSURE LITIGATION §1.26 (4th ed. 2009). The note here specifically identified the
c party to whom it was payable, WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, and the note therefore cannot
c be transferred unless the note is endorsed. See Cal. Com. Code §§3109, 3201, 3203, 3204. The
 c attachments to the claim do not establish that WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK or JP

c MORGAN endorsed and sold the note to any other party.
c

Ê


 
cc c
 c

c On information and belief, Defendant alleges that WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK

c and the JP MORGAN regularly approved loans to unqualified borrowers, and implemented
c practices in this regard ranging from questionable to criminal. Further on information and belief,
c Defendants alleges that WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, salespeople worked on commission,
c meaning the more loans they sold, the more bonus money they received. Defendants also alleges
c on information and belief that WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, salespeople received a
c greater commission or bonus for placing borrowers in loans with relatively higher yield spread

c premiums, and therefore borrowers were steered and encouraged into loans with terms less
c favorable than other loans for which the borrowers could actually qualify. The loan was sold and
c transferred several times, ultimately to DBNTC for servicing.
c On information and belief, Defendant alleges in all of the wrongful acts alleged herein,
c Plaintiff and each of them have utilized the United States mail, telephones and internet in
c furtherance of their pattern of conduct to unlawfully collect negotiable instruments when they
c were not entitled under the law to do so or, assuming

that they were so entitled, to
c profit from these actions in amounts exceeding their rights under the Note.
c On information and belief, Defendant alleges Plaintiffs, in committing the acts alleged in
 c this Complaint and in other cases, are engaging in a pattern of unlawful activity. In pursuing non-

c judicial foreclosure, Plaintiffs represented that they had the right to payment under the Note,
c payment of which was secured by the Deed of Trust. Whereas, in fact, Plaintiffs were not in
c possession of the Note and they were neither holders of the Note nor non-holders of the Note
c entitled to payment, as those terms are used in California Commercial Code §§3301 and 3309,
c and therefore they were proceeding to foreclose without right under the law.
c In addition, C.C.P.§2937(a) ³requires that borrowers have the right to know when a
c person holding a promissory note, bond, or other instrument transfers servicing of the indebtness
c secured by a mortgage or deed of trust on real property´.
c Further, Plaintiff discovered that the Pooling and Servicing Agreement states the
 c mortgage note will not be recorded or assigned unless certain circumstances require it.

c

Ê


 
cc
c
 c

c Furthermore, Defendants added costs and charges to the payoff amount of the Note that
c were not justified or proper under the terms of the Note or the law.
c On information and belief, Defendant alleges Plaintiffs misrepresented the facts intending
c to force Defendant to either pay large sums of money to Plaintiffs to which they were not
c entitled, or to abandon the Property to foreclosure sale, to Plaintiffs ' profit.
c

c SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violation of RESPA- 12 U.S.C. †2601à
à

c
0Against all Cross-Defendants)
c

c
Defendant incorporates paragraphs above and hereby alleges as follows:
c
The loan transaction between Defendant and Plaintiff is a mortgage loan covered by RESPA. A
c
violation of RESPA is also made unlawful under California state law "by Financial Code section
c
50505, which states: "Any person who violates any provision of [RESPA] or any regulation
c
promulgated thereunder, violates this division [California Residential Mortgage Lending Act]."
c
Defendant is not certain at this time exactly which of the Lenders was actually the servicer of the
c
loan at any given time, although he believed that the loan servicer was WASHINGTON
 c
MUTUAL BANK, at the time of the foreclosure. However, due to the conspiratorial nature of

c
the misdeeds alleged herein, and also due to Plaintiff ' general failure to properly advise
c
Defendant as to the roles and identities of the various entities that were purportedly handling his
c
loan at any given time, these allegations are made as to Plaintiff. Plaintiff violated RESP A at
c
the time of closing on the sale of the Property by failing to correctly and accurately comply with
c
disclosure requirements.
c
Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff s have engaged in
c
a pattern or practice of non-compliance with the requirements of the mortgage servicer
c
provisions of RESPA as set forth in 12 r §2605. As a result of Plaintiff s' failure to comply
c
with RESPA, Defendant has suffered and continues to suffer damages and costs of suit.
 c
Defendant is entitled to recover statutory damages of actual damages in an amount to be

c
determined at trial, and costs and fees as the court deems proper.
c

Ê


 
ccc
 c

c THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

c California Rosenthal Act
c 0Against all Cross-Defendants)
c Defendant incorporates here each and every allegation set forth above.
c Plaintiff s' actions constitute a violation of the Rosenthal Act in that they threatened to
c take actions not permitted by law, including but not limited to: foreclosing upon a void security
c interest; foreclosing upon a note of which they were not in possession nor otherwise entitled to

c payment; falsely stating the amount of a debt; increasing the amount of a debt by including
c amounts that are not permitted by law or contract; and using unfair and unconscionable means in
c an attempt to collect a debt. Plaintiff s' actions have caused Defendant actual damages,
c including, but not limited to: severe emotional distress, including, but not limited to, loss of
c appetite, frustration, fear, anger, helplessness, nervousness, anxiety, sleeplessness, sadness and
c depression. As a result of Plaintiff s' violations, Defendant is entitled to statutory damages in an
c amount to be determined at trial, actual damages according to proof, and costs and fees as the
c court deems proper.
c

 c FOURTH CAUSEOF ACTION


c Quiet Title
c 0Against Cross-Defendants, DBNTC)
c Defendant incorporates here each and every allegation set forth above.
c Plaintiff , DBNTC, as Trustee claim an interest adverse to Defendant¶s interest in the
c Property, in the form of the Deed of Trust recorded pursuant to the loan transaction and the
c Trustee's Deed recorded pursuant to the foreclosure sale, and Defendant is seeking to quiet title
c against the claims of Plaintiff DBNTC as beneficiary and other unnamed Plaintiff s who would
c claim interest under such Deed of Trust and Trustee's Deed.
c
Defendant desires and is entitled to a judicial declaration quieting title in Plaintiff
 c s' as of January 23, 2006, the date on which the loan transaction was consummated.

c

Ê


 
ccc
 c

c

c FIFTH CAUSEOF ACTION

c Wrongful Foreclosure
c 0Against Cross-Defendants: DBNTC)
c Defendant incorporates here each and every allegation set forth above.
c California Commercial Code section 3301 specifically identifies the persons who are
c entitled to enforce a security interest, such as instituting a foreclosure sale under a deed of trust.

c The statute is exclusive rather than inclusive in nature, and those who are not identified do not
c have the right to enforce such an interest.
c Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that QUALITY LOAN
c SERVICE, as Trustee were not and are not in possession of the Note, and are not otherwise
c entitled to payment. Moreover, Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that said
c Plaintiffs¶ are not "person[s] entitled to enforce" the security interest on the Property, as that term
c is defined in Commercial Code section 3301. In the Notice of Trustee's Sale, WASHINGTON
c MUTUAL BANK claimed that it was the holder of the beneficial interest under the Deed of
c Trust as of May 11, 2010.
 c Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that such claim was false,

c National Default Servicing Company had reason to know that such claim was false. Moreover,
c Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff s' JP MORGAN CHASE
c were not in possession of the Note, and were not entitled to enforce the security interest on the
c Property.
c Said Plaintiff s' also failed to properly record and give notice of the Substitution of
c Trustee which may or may not have occurred as provided by California Civil Code section
c 2934a, subsection (b). One purpose of the requirements set forth in this code section is to inform
c trustors of the details of alleged defaults and foreclosure proceedings. It follows that trustors who
c are not properly informed of a substitution of trustee cannot exercise their rights to investigate
 c the circumstances of the foreclosure proceedings.

c

Ê


 
ccc
 c

c Indeed, in the instant action, Defendant sent several Qualified Written Requests to U.S.
c Bank, but it is still not clear whether U.S. Bank or someone else entirely was the party to whom
c the request should have been addressed at the time. The fact that U.S. Bank did not acknowledge
c receipt of the request in the time period allowed by law, nor did U.S. Bank ever provide the
c information and explanations requested, raises the question of whether the request might have
c been better addressed to another party. Said Plaintiff s' failure to comply with statutory notice
c requirements denied Defendant the opportunity to exercise the rights that the statutory notice is

c specifically designed to protect.

c Said Plaintiffs do not have the right to foreclose upon the Property under the law. Even
c assuming,

that Plaintiffs did have some right to enforce the security interest, the
c procedures used violated statutory requirements governing non-judicial foreclosure sales. As a
c direct and proximate result of said Plaintiffs ' wrongful actions, Defendant has suffered damages,
c including, but not limited to, direct monetary loss, consequential damages, and emotional
c distress.
c In committing the wrongful acts alleged herein, said Plaintiffs acted with malice,
c oppression and fraud. Said Plaintiffs ' willful conduct warrants an award of damages in an
 c amount sufficient to punish the wrongful conduct and deter such misconduct in the future.

c

c SIXTH CAUSEOF ACTION

c Slander of Title
c 0Against Cross-Defendants: DBNTC)
c Defendant incorporates here each and every allegation set forth above.
c Plaintiffs DBNTC, disparaged Defendant exclusive valid title in 2010, by and through
c the preparing, posting, publishing and recording of the documents previously described herein,
c including, but not limited to, the Notice of Default.
c Said Plaintiffs knew or should have known that such document was improper in that at
 c the time of the execution and delivery of said documents, Plaintiffs had no right, title, or interest

c in the Property. The document was naturally and commonly to be interpreted as disparaging, and
c

Ê


 
ccc
 c

c casting doubt upon Defendants¶ legal title to the Property. By posting, publishing, and recording,
c said documents, Plaintiffs ' disparagement of Defendants¶ legal title was made to the community
c at large.
c As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs ' conduct in publishing this document,
c Defendants title to the Property has been disparaged and slandered, and there is a cloud on
c Defendant title, and Defendant has suffered, and continues to suffer, damages in an amount to
c be proved at trial. As a further proximate result of Plaintiffs' conduct, Defendant has incurred

c expenses in order to clear title to the Property. Moreover, these expenses are continuing, and
c Defendant will incur additional charges for such purpose until the cloud on Defendant¶s title to
c the Property has been removed. The amounts of future expenses and damages are not
c ascertainable at this time.
c As a further direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs' conduct, Defendant has suffered
c humiliation, mental anguish, anxiety, depression, and emotional and physical distress, resulting
c in the loss of sleep and other injuries to his health and well-being, and continues to suffer such
c injuries on an ongoing basis. The amount of such damages shall be proven at trial.
c At the time that the false and disparaging documents were created and published by the
 c Plaintiffs , Plaintiffs knew the documents were false and created and published them with the

c malicious intent to injure Defendant and deprive his of his exclusive right, title, and interest in
c the Property, and to obtain the Property for their own use by unlawful means.
c The conduct of the Plaintiffs¶ in publishing the document described above was
c fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious. Therefore, Defendant is entitled to an award of punitive
c damages in an amount sufficient to punish Plaintiffs¶ for their malicious conduct and deter such
c misconduct in the future.
c

c

c SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

 c Civil Conspiracy

c 0Against Cross- Defendants)
c

Ê


 
ccc
 c

c Defendant incorporates here each and every allegation set forth above.
c Defendant is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff conspired and
c agreed to implement a scheme to defraud and victimize Defendant through the predatory lending
c practices and other unlawful acts alleged herein.
c Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs¶ did the acts and
c things alleged herein pursuant to and in furtherance of their conspiracy to defraud and victimize
c Defendant.

c Defendant is informed and believes that Defendants sued herein under fictitious names
c committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, and/or lent aid and encouragement to their co-
c conspirators and/or ratified and adopted the acts of their co- conspirators, and are thus jointly and
c severally liable for all harm to Plaintiff resulting from the conspiracy.
c As the direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs¶ conspiracy to defraud and victimize
c Defendant, Defendant has suffered damages, including, but not limited to, direct monetary loss,
c consequential damages, and emotional distress.
c In conspiring to defraud and victimize Defendant, and in committing the wrongful acts
c alleged herein, Plaintiffs¶ acted with malice, oppression, and fraud, thus justifying an award of
 c damages in an amount sufficient to punish their wrongful conduct and deter such misconduct in

c the future.
c

c EIGHTH CAUSEOF ACTION

c Unfair Business Practices-California Business& Professions Code †17200
c 0Against Cross-Defendants)
c Defendant incorporates here each and every allegation set forth above.
c Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiffs¶ committed
c unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent business practices, as defined by California Business and
c Professions Code section 17200, by engaging in the unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business
 c practices alleged herein.

c

Ê


 
ccc
 c

c As a result of Plaintiffs' wrongful conduct, Defendant has suffered various damages and
c injuries according to proof at trial. Defendant seeks injunctive relief enjoining Plaintiffs¶ from
c engaging in the unfair business practices described herein. Defendant further seeks restitution,
c disgorgement of sums wrongfully obtained, costs of suit, and such other and further relief as the
c Court may deem just and proper.
c NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
c Imposition of Constructive Trust

c 0Against Cross-Defendant Company)

c Plaintiff incorporates here each and every allegation set forth above.
c Since November 28, 2007, Plaintiff has been the rightful owner of legal title to the
c Property. In contravention of Plaintiffs¶ ownership rights and interests in the Property, Plaintiff,
c DBNTC purported to obtain legal title to the Property by means of an unjustified and fraudulent
c non-judicial foreclosure sale. DBNTC refuses to acknowledge Plaintiffs status as the rightful
c owner of the Property. Defendant holds whatever interest it claims in the Property in trust for
c Plaintiff.
c TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
 c Fraud

c 0Against Cross-Defendants)
c Defendant incorporates here each and every allegation set forth above.
c As alleged herein, Plaintiffs¶, and each of them, have made several representations to
c Defendant with regard to important facts. These representations made by Plaintiffs¶ were false.
c Plaintiffs¶ knew that these representations were false when made, or these representations were
c made with reckless disregard for the truth.
c Plaintiffs intended that Defendant rely on these representations. Defendant reasonably
c relied on said representations. As a result of Plaintiff's reliance, he was harmed and suffered
c damages. Defendant reliance on Plaintiffs ' false representations was a substantial factor in
 c causing Defendant¶s harm.

c

Ê


 
ccc
 c

c Plaintiff s are guilty of malice, fraud or oppression, as defined in California Civil Code
c section 3294, and Plaintiff s' actions were malicious and done willfully, in conscious disregard of
c the rights and safety of Defendant, in that the actions were calculated to injure Defendant. As
c such, Defendant is entitled to recover, in addition to actual damages, punitive damages to punish
c Plaintiff s and to deter future misconduct.
c WHEREFORE, Defendant prays for judgment and an order against Plaintiffs as
c follows:

c A.c That judgment be entered in his favor and against Defendants, and each of them;
c B.c For an order and judgment stating that the Deed of Trust be adjudged void and of no legal
c force and effect and shall be cancelled, stricken, and or rescinded forthwith;
c C.c For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction preventing
c Defendants, or anyone acting under or in concert with them, from acting on a Deed of
c Trustee¶s Sale;
c D.c In any other orders as the court may determine to be just.
c E.c For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction directing the Los
c Angeles County Sheriff s Department to refrain from executing any lockout order with
 c respect to the Property;

c F.c For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction preventing
c Plaintiffs, or anyone acting under or in concert with them, from collecting on the subject
c loan and from causing the Property to be sold or assigned to a third party;
c G.c For an order stating that Plaintiffs engaged in unfair business practices;
c H.c For an order stating that the Deed of Trust, Notice of Default, constitutes slander of title
c to Defendant and the Property;
c I.c For an order and judgment quieting title to the Property;
c J.c For damages, disgorgement, and injunctive relief under California's common and
c statutory law of unfair business practices;
 c K.c For compensatory and statutory damages and costs according to proof at trial;

c

Ê


 
ccc
 c

c L.c For damages in an amount sufficient to punish Plaintiffs' wrongful conduct and deter
c future misconduct;
c M.cFor such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
c N.c If such relief cannot be granted, Defendant is requesting a Jury Trial.
c WEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, defendant prays that plaintiff take
c nothing by reason of this suit, and that the defendant recover all costs and be granted such
c other and further relief, both general and special, to which defendant may be justly

c entitled wither at law or equity.

c

c VERIFICATION
c STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGLES
CASE NAME: Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as Indenture trustee, for the
c
benefit of the holders of the Aames Mortgage Investment Trust 2005-4 Mortgage backed Notes,
c its successors and/or assignees v. Rene Leon

c CASE NUMBER: 10U13492

c 1.c I am a party to this action. I have read the foregoing Answer and Cross-Complaint and
c know its contents. The matters stated therein are true of my own knowledge, except as to
those matters which are stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I
 c believe them to be true.

c
Executed on ___________________2010 , at _________________________, California. I
c declare under the penalty of perjury under all the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
c

c
_________ Rene Leon ______________ _____________________________
c Signaturec
c c

c c

c

c

 c


c

Ê


 
cc c