Citi Investment Capital v. JPMorgan Chase Bank CA4/3

DISCUSSION

“We review an order granting summary judgment de novo.” (Serri v. Santa Clara University (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 830, 858.) In undertaking this review, “we apply the same three-step analysis used by the trial court. First, we identify the issues framed by the pleadings. Second, we determine whether the moving party has established facts justifying judgment in its favor. Finally, in most cases, if the moving party has carried its initial burden, we decide whether the opposing party has demonstrated the existence of a triable issue of material fact.” (Id. at pp. 858–859.) Citi alleged three causes of action against Chase: (1) intentional interference with prospective economic opportunity; (2) negligent interference with prospective economic opportunity; and (3) negligence. At the core of each

3 cause of action was Citi’s allegation that Chase’s orders to the trustee to rescind the sale interfered with its potential economic relationships. In arguing the trial court erred in granting Chase’s motion for summary judgment, Citi relies on Civil Code section 2924c. That section provides, in relevant part, that “[r]einstatement of a monetary default under the terms of an…