Pasadena, California, Business Litigation Lawyer

Real Property - Only remedy for lender's failure to explore options to prevent foreclosure is postponement of foreclosure. Although the Perata Mortgage Relief Act provision requiring a lender to explore options to prevent foreclosure before filing a notice of default may be enforced by a private right of action, the only available remedy is postponement of the impending foreclosure to allow the lender to comply with the statute. If a foreclosure sale is held without compliance with the statute, the lender's noncompliance does not affect the title to the property obtained at the foreclosure sale. Mabry v. Superior Court

Premises Liability - A Defendant who hosted a party at his home that included alcohol and music, and allegedly issued an open invitation through a social networking Web site, was not liable for injuries to guests who were attacked by third parties because invitation was not "active conduct" increasing the risk of harm and giving rise to a duty of care to prevent it, and did not give rise to a special relationship between plaintiffs and defendant. Even if risk of criminal attack was reasonably foreseeable, which it was not, the burden of preventing the particular criminal conduct outweighed the foreseeable risk of harm. Melton v. Boustred

Real Property - Loan servicer did not owe a duty to a mortgagor to support a mortgagor's negligence claim. Under California law, a loan servicer does not owe a duty to the mortgagor, as would support the mortgagor's negligence claim alleging that the loan servicer took payments to which it was not entitled, charged fees it was not entitled to charge, and wrongfully made or otherwise authorized negative reporting of the mortgagor's creditworthiness to various credit bureaus. Rather, the loan servicer's duty was to the beneficiary of the deed of trust, not the mortgagor. Saldate v. Wilshire Credit Corp.

Personal Injury - Primary Assumption of Risk applies to Golf.

The primary assumption of risk doctrine applies to golf. Thus, golfers have a limited duty of care to other players, breached only if they intentionally injure them or engage in conduct that is so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport. Many factors will bear on whether a golfer's conduct was reasonable, negligent, or reckless, including the golfer's skill level, whether topographical undulations, trees, or other impediments obscure his view, what steps he took to determine whether anyone was within range, and the distance and angle between an injured coparticipant and the golfer. Shin v. Ahn

For more information regarding these cases or any other case of interest to you, please contact Leon A. Victor & Associates, PC. We offer free consultations.