PRASAD
PRASAD v. CJ Investment Services, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
I. BACKGROUND
A. Loan Origination Plaintiffs purchased the property located at 2300 Evergreen Drive, San Bruno, CA 94066 (the “Property”), in 2021. (Dkt. No. 26-3 (“Prasad TRO Decl.”) ¶ 1 & Ex. A.) In early 2023, Plaintiffs began looking to refinance their second position mortgage on the Property. (Id. ¶ 2.) Plaintiffs submitted a loan application, which identified the Property as their primary residence, to Main Street Mortgage, but “that refinance[] did not pan out.” (Id. ¶ 3, Ex. A.) The next month, Mr. Prasad contacted Defendants about refinancing. (Id. ¶ 4.) Sridhar Capital is a commercial lender, which does not make consumer loans. (Dkt. No. 29-2 (“Sridhar Decl.”) ¶ 1.) The parties dispute what and how information was exchanged during the loan application process, but ultimately, both sides proceeded with the loan. (See Prasad TRO Decl.; Dkt. No. 29-3 (“Bodien Decl.”); Dkt. No. 35-1 (“Prasad PI Decl.”); Dkt. No. 38 (“Bodien Supp. Decl.”).) On March 31, 2024, Bodien sent an email to Sue Jamieson, a loan processor and alleged agent of CJ Investment, introducing her to Mr. Prasad: Sue, Please meet Ricky Prasad, the primary Borrower on 2300 Evergreen, San Bruno.…