Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP
California Court of Appeal
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
THOMPSON, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in those portions of the majority opinion which conclude the trial court correctly sustained the *88demurrers to the first amended complaint, because Lueras did not state any viable cause of action. I respectfully dissent from those portions of the majority opinion which conclude the trial court incorrectly denied leave to amend, because Lueras did not demonstrate a reasonable possibility he can state any viable cause of action. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion and the judgment should be affirmed in all respects.
INTRODUCTION
T…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Blank v. KirwanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Nymark v. Heart Federal Savings & Loan Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1991
- Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2011
- Rakestraw v. California Physicians' ServiceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2000
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.