Cato

Cato v. HSBC Bank USA CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 31, 2014C072623California4,474 words

Opinion

Opinion

Filed 7/31/14 Cato v. HSBC Bank USA CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(El Dorado) ----

JEROME CATO,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C072623

v. (Super. Ct. No. PC20110016)

HSBC BANK, USA, as Trustee, etc., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Plaintiff Jerome Cato lost his house through foreclosure after he became unable to make payments on his mortgage. Cato received the mortgage loan from lender, PRO30 Funding, with the help of Sue Stevens, an employee of Interstate Mortgage. Facing foreclosure, Cato sued for deceit, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.), and wrongful foreclosure. In addition to suing the parties originally…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.