Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 California opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Surrey v. TRUEBEGINNINGS, LLCgreen2 sentences2019Surrey involved a matchmaking website that "offer[ed] certain free services to women who joined." ( Id . at p. 417, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 443 .) The plaintiff, Steven Surrey, "visited TrueBeginnings's Web site with the intent of utilizing its services; after discovering the discrepancy in its charges, he did not, however, subscribe to or pay for its services." ( Ibid. ) The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff lacked standing to claim gender discrimination under the Act: "Because he did not attempt to or actually subscribe to TrueBeginnings's services, Surrey did not suffer discrimination in any s 2019Surrey involved a matchmaking website that "offer[ed] certain free services to women who joined." ( Id . at p. 417, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 443 .) The plaintiff, Steven Surrey, "visited TrueBeginnings's Web site with the intent of utilizing its services; after discovering the discrepancy in its charges, he did not, however, subscribe to or pay for its services." ( Ibid. ) The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiff lacked standing to claim gender discrimination under the Act: "Because he did not attempt to or actually subscribe to TrueBeginnings's services, Surrey did not suffer discrimination in any s | 1 | 1 |
Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.green1 sentence2016(Saterbak, at pp. 814-815; see Rajamin v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. (2d Cir. 2014) 757 F.3d 79, 90 [under New York law, an improper transfer into investment trust is voidable, not void].) The portion of the holding in Glaski on the purported effect of an untimely assignment is not controlling and we need not consider it further. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jenkins v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
green
2 sentences2014(Jenkins, at p. 512.) Additionally, the Jenkins court found that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge purported violations of the investment trust’s pooling and servicing agreement. ( Jenkins, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th 497, 514-515 .) The court reasoned that the relevant parties to the pooling process were the parties that transferred the promissory notes and the third party acquirers of the notes, not the plaintiff, who was an unrelated third party to the securitization. 2014(Jenkins, at p. 512.) Additionally, the Jenkins court found that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge purported violations of the investment trust’s pooling and servicing agreement. ( Jenkins, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th 497, 514-515 .) The court reasoned that the relevant parties to the pooling process were the parties that transferred the promissory notes and the third party acquirers of the notes, not the plaintiff, who was an unrelated third party to the securitization. | 3 | 2014–2015 |
Kalnoki v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC
green
1 sentence2020(Id. at pp. 816, 820.) The decision in Kalnoki v. First American Trustee Servicing Solutions, LLC (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 23 (Kalnoki) is also on point here. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp.
green
1 sentence2016In Saterbak, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at page 815 , this court observed that Yvanova "expressly offers no opinion as to whether, under New York law, an untimely assignment to a securitized trust made after the trust's closing date is void or merely voidable." 11 ( Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at pp. 931, 940-941.) In Saterbak, we treated such a delayed assignment as voidable in nature, not void, and then concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge such an alleged defect in the underlying assignment of the trust deed. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Saterbak v. JP Morgan Chase Bank CA4/1
green
1 sentence2016In Saterbak, supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at page 815 , this court observed that Yvanova "expressly offers no opinion as to whether, under New York law, an untimely assignment to a securitized trust made after the trust's closing date is void or merely voidable." 11 ( Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at pp. 931, 940-941.) In Saterbak, we treated such a delayed assignment as voidable in nature, not void, and then concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge such an alleged defect in the underlying assignment of the trust deed. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Glaski v. Bank of America CA5
green
2 sentences2016(Glaski, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1082 .) The Fifth Appellate District panel reasoned plaintiff had standing to challenge the trust deed assignment if the alleged defects made the assignment void and not merely voidable. ( Glaski, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1094-1095.) The Fifth Appellate District reached this conclusion based on its literal reading of New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law section 7-2.4, which states, “If the trust is expressed in [an] instrument creating the estate of the trustee, every sale, conveyance or other act of the trustee in contravention of the trust, excep 2016(Glaski, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1082 .) The Fifth Appellate District panel reasoned plaintiff had standing to challenge the trust deed assignment if the alleged defects made the assignment void and not merely voidable. ( Glaski, supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1094-1095.) The Fifth Appellate District reached this conclusion based on its literal reading of New York Estates, Powers and Trusts Law section 7-2.4, which states, “If the trust is expressed in [an] instrument creating the estate of the trustee, every sale, conveyance or other act of the trustee in contravention of the trust, excep | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.