KAMALA D. HARRIS FROM FILING FEES Attorney General of California UNDER GOVT. CODE SEC. 6103] FRANCES T. GRUNDER Senior Assistant Attorney General BENJAMIN G. DIEHL NICKLAS A. AKERS Supervising Deputy Attorneys General SUSAN M. SAYLOR (SBN 154592) TODD 1. 15591190511 (SBN 209591) ANGELA M. (SBN 263971) NICHOLAS G. CAMPINS (S BN 238022) Deputy Attorneys General 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 Telephone: (415) 703-5500 Fax: (415) 703-5480 E-mail: Nicholas.Campins@doi.ca.gov Attorneys for Plafmt'?' THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIF ORNLA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF Case No. CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, v. OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF ONEWEST BANK, FSB, a Federal Savings Bank, and DOES 1 through 50, INCLUSIVE, Defendants. PEOPLE v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES, PERMANENT INJUNCTION, AND COMPLAINT The People of the State of California, by and through Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of the State of California, hereby allege the following based on information and belief: 1. This case is about OneWest?s widespread violation of California?s laws governing nonjudicial foreclosure and its disregard for the integrity of our state?s public records. Speci?cally, OneWest: (I) signed hundreds of backdated and false instruments, acknowledged them to notaries, and then caused them to be recorded with county recorders throughout the State; (2) made and directed improper credit bids at trustees? sales; (3) performed acts in the foreclosure process without valid legal authority; and (4) failed to comply with laws governing the execution, timing, and mailing of foreclosure documents. BACKGROUND A. The Non-Judicial Foreclosure Process. 2. In California, lenders can foreclose on deeds of trust or mortgages using a nonjudicial foreclosure process (outside of court) or a judicial foreclosure process (through the courts). Nonjudicial foreclosure, the more common process, is used when there is a power?of- sale clause in the deed of trust that gives the trustee the authority to sell the home, at the lender?s request, if the borrower defaults. 3. While the nonjudicial foreclosure process takes place outside of court, the Civil Code establishes many of the critical ground rules that the parties must follow during the foreclosure process. 4. These statutory procedures promote the orderly operation of the nonjudicial foreclosure process, protect the interests of homeowners, lenders and others participating in foreclosure sales, and safeguard the reliability and integrity of land title records. Moreover, because the nonjudicial foreclosure process is typically conducted without judicial oversight, these statutory procedures are a key line of defense protecting the interests of homeowners, consumers and the public. The statutes, for example, provide notice and timing requirements related to notices of default and notices of trustee's sale, set forth auction bidding procedures for the actual sales, and provide a method to substitute a new trustee in for the one found in the original deed of trust. PEOPLE v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB COMPLAINT 5. Defendant OneWest Bank, FSB, regularly violates California foreclosure statutes, and Plaintiff seeks relief against OneWest Bank, SB, for unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business acts and practices under the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. (the ?Unfair Competition Law"). B. Overview of OneWest Bank, SB, and Its Misconduct. 6. Beginning operations on or about March 19, 2009, OneWest Bank, SB, (?OneWest?) was created by a group of investors which acquired most of the remaining assets of the failed bank IndyMac Bank, SB, from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Through this and other transactions, OneWest acquired a large servicing portfolio of single-family residential loans. This portfolio included large numbers of two types of high?risk home loans: ?Alt loans, which did not require veri?cation or documentation of the borrower?s income, assets or employment; and ?Option loans, which allowed borrowers to pay less than the ?illy amortized cost of the mortgage. Both types have extremely high delinquency rates. Accordingly, many homes were already in foreclosure when OneWest acquired the assets, and OneWest continued these foreclosures and began new ones shortly after beginning Operations. 7. In connection with its foreclosures on homeowners, OneWest engaged in repeated and wideSpread violations of statutes 1n counties throughout the State, including Alameda County. 8. In connection with nonjudicial foreclosures, OneWest repeatedly executed and acknowledged false instruments. OneWest then knowingly ?led and recorded and/or caused to be ?led and recorded these false instruments with county recorder of?ces throughout the State, including Alameda County. In so doing, OneWest violated statutes prohibiting the ?ling and recording of false instruments and documents. For example, in 2007, 2008, and early 2009, OneWest caused instruments to be ?led and recorded with county recorder of?ces with backdated execution dates re?ecting dates of years, months, and weeks before OneWest actually began Operations. 9. OneWest knowingly and repeatedly caused to be ?led and recorded with county recorder of?ces instruments (Substitutions of Trustee) in which OneWest falsely claimed to be PEOPLE v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB COMPLAINT the present bene?ciary under the applicable deeds of trust when it was not the bene?ciary. OneWest knowingly allowed improperly substituted trustees to conduct foreclosure sales. 10. OneWest also made false statements concerning its own status as a bene?ciary, as well as the bene?cial status of others. These statements were made in a variety of contexts, including in the context of the trustee?s sale bidding process and in the avoidance of transfer taxes. 1 1. OneWest repeatedly violated basic procedural requirements related to foreclosures and the recording and execution of instruments and documents. OneWest did not provide notice to homeowners of substitutions of trustees as required by statute and prematurely initiated foreclosures in-violation of mandated waiting periods. In addition, OneWest caused instruments and documents to be recorded with county recorder of?ces that were not properly acknowledged before notaries public as required under State statute. 12. By this action, the People seek: to permanently enjoin OneWest from engaging in these unlaw?ll, fraudulent, and unfair business practices in non-judicial foreclosures; to obtain restitution for affected homeowners; to impose civil penalties against OneWest in accordance with and to the extent permitted under California law; and to obtain any and all other relief to which the People of the State of California are entitled. PLAINTIFF 13. Plaintiff is the People of the State of California (the ?People?). The People bring this action by and through Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of the State of California, pursuant to her police powers. DEFENDANTS l4. Defendant OneWest Bank, FSB, is a Federal Savings Bank, whose principal place of business is in Pasadena, California in Los Angeles County. At all times relevant herein, Defendant OneWest Bank, FSB, has transacted and continues to transact business throughout California, including in Alameda County. 15. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 50, inclusive, presently are unknown to the People, who therefore sue these defendants by their ?ctitious names. The People will seek PEOPLE v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB COMPLAINT leave to amend this Complaint to allege the true names of Does 1 through 50 once they have been ascertained. Does 1 through 50 participated in some or all of the acts alleged herein. l6. Defendant OneWest Bank, FSB, its agents, employees, of?cers, and others acting on its behalf, as well as subsidiaries, af?liates, and other entities controlled by Defendant OneWest Bank, FSB, are referred to collectively herein as ?OneWest.? l7. OneWest and Does 1 through 50 above are referred to collectively in this Complaint as the ?Defendants.? 18. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act of Defendants, that allegation shall mean that each Defendant acted individually and jointly with the other Defendants named in that cause of action. 19. At all times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants acted as the principal, agent, or representative of each of the other Defendants, and in doing the acts herein alleged, each Defendant was acting within the course and scope of the agency relationship with each of the other Defendants, and with the permission and rati?cation of each of the other Defendants. 20. At all relevant times, Defendants have controlled, directed, formulated, known and/or approved of, and/or agreed to the various acts and practices of each of the Defendants. 21. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act of any Defendant or Defendants, the allegation shall mean that the Defendant or Defendants did the acts alleged in this Complaint either personally or through the Defendant?s or Defendants? of?cers, directors, employees, agents and/or representatives acting within the actual or ostensible scope of their authority. 22. At all times mentioned herein, each Defendant knew that the other Defendants were engaging in or planned to engage in the violations of law alleged in this Complaint. Knowing that other Defendants were engaging in such unlaw?il conduct, each Defendant nevertheless facilitated the commission of those unlaw?il acts. Each Defendant intended to and did encourage, facilitate, or assist in the commission of the unlaw?il acts alleged in this Complaint, and thereby aided and abetted the other Defendants in the unlaw?il conduct. PEOPLE v. ONEVVEST BANK, SB COMPLAINT 23. Each Defendant committed the acts, caused or directed others to commit the acts, -or permitted others to commit the acts alleged in this Complaint. Additionally, some or all of the defendants acted as the agents of the other defendants, and all of the Defendants acted within the scope of their agency if acting as an agent of another. 24. All violations of law alleged in this Complaint occurred on or after the date OneWest began operations on or about March 19, 2009. 25. Each Defendant is a ?person? as de?ned in Business and Professions Code section 17201. 26. All of the conduct that forms the basis for this Complaint has been undertaken by Defendants by and through their agents, employees, of?cers, or others acting on their behalf. 27. The Peeple assert no claims or causes of action against and seek no relief from any banks whose assets were acquired by OneWest. In particular, the People assert no claims or causes of action against and seek no relief from IndyMac Bank, IndyMac Federal Bank, First Federal Bank of California, and La Jolla Bank, FSB. The People further assert no claims or causes of action against and seek no relief from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 28. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to article VI, section 10 of the California Constitution. 29. This Court has jurisdiction over OneWest because its principal place of business is in California and it otherwise intentionally avails itself of the California market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 30. This Court has jurisdiction over Doe Defendants because, based on information and belief, each is a corporation that has sufficient minimum contacts in California, is a citizen of California, or otherwise intentionally avails itself of the California market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. PEOPLE v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB COMPLAINT 31. The violations of law alleged in this Complaint occurred in Alameda County and elsewhere throughout California. 32. Venue is therefore pmper in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 393(a) because the violations of law that occurred in Alameda County are a ?part of the cause" upon which the People seek the recovery of penalties imposed by statute. BUSINESS ACTS AND PRACTICES THAT VIOLATE THE UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW 33. As ?rrther alleged herein, OneWest has engaged in business acts and practices related to the foreclosure of homes throughout California, including Alameda County, and the execution and recordation of foreclosure-related instruments in counties throughout the State, including Alameda County, that are unlaw?Jl, unfair, and fraudulent in violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. 34. The conduct that is the basis for the cause of action asserted herein occurred on or after the date OneWest began operations on or about March 19, 2009. On information and belief, such conduct is continuing to occur. This unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent conduct includes, without limitation, the following: knowingly ?ling false instruments and documents for recordation in county recorders? of?ces; misconduct related to foreclosure auctions and associated tax evasion; performing acts in the foreclosure process without valid legal authority; violating statutory homeowner notice requirements and waiting periods; and violating basic statutory requirements regarding the execution and recordation of instruments. A. OneWest Knowingly Has Filed False Instruments and Documents For Recordation. 35. California Penal Code section 115 makes it unlawful to knowingly procure or offer any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public of?ce within the State. Each false or forged instrument procured or offered to be recorded is a separate violation. 36. Penal Code section 1 15.5 ?rrther makes it unlaw?il to ?le any false document or instrument with the county recorder which affects title to, places an encumbrance on, or places an PEOPLE v. ON EWEST BANK, SB COMPLAINT interest secured by a mortgage or deed of trust on, real property consisting of a single-family residence containing not more than four dwelling units, with knowledge that the document is false. 37. Pursuant to Penal Code section 7, OneWest is a ?person? legally capable of violating Penal Code sections 115 and 115.5. 38. OneWest has repeatedly and knowingly procured and/or offered false andlor forged instruments and documents related to the foreclosure of California homes to be ?led, registered, and/or recorded in county recorder of?ces throughout the State. In so doing, OneWest repeatedly and knowingly ?led false documents that affected title to single family residences with county recorder of?ces. At all relevant times, such instruments and documents, if genuine, were of the type that it was preper to ?le, register, or record. 39. Such documents were false and/or forged because, by way of example and without limitation, they included backdated execution dates, backdated acknowledgement dates, post- execution alterations and false statements concerning the status of OneWest or another entity as bene?ciary under a Deed of Trust. 40. OneWest?s misconduct violates Penal Code sections 115 and 1 15.5. B. OneWest?s Misconduct Related to Foreclosure Auctions and Associated Tax Evasion. 41. Civil Code section 2924h governs the conduct of foreclosure auction sales. The statute provides that, at foreclosure sales, the foreclosure trustee has the right to require payment in cash or cash equivalents. Moreover, section 2924b, subdivision provides, ?the present bene?ciary of the deed of trust under foreclosure shall have the right to offset his or her bid or bids only to the extent ofthe total amount due the bene?ciary including the trustee?s fees and expenses.? The act of placing a bid pursuant to this statutory right is commonly known as ?credit bidding.? By the plain language of the statute, the only party authorized to make a credit bit is the present bene?ciary of the loan. 42. To make misrepresentations about one?s status as the present bene?ciary under the deed of trust in connection with making a credit bid is unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent. PEOPLE v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB COMPLAINT 43. Moreover, Civil Code section 2924b, subdivision(g) provides, ?[th shall be unlaw?il for any person, acting alone or in concert with others . . . to?x or restrain bidding in any manner, at a sale of property conducted pursuant to a power of sale in a deed of trust or mortgage? and bars ?any not declared unlaW?Jl by this subdivision or any act which would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any bene?ciary, trustor, or junior lienor.? 44. Deed of trust beneficiaries also have special status under certain city and county documentary transfer tax ordinances, such as those authorized by Revenue and Taxation Code sections 1 19101 et seq. Under such ordinances, present deed of trust beneficiaries that purchase real property in foreclosure sales are typically exempt ?om payment of the documentary transfer tax that non-bene?ciary purchasers are obligated to pay. 45. On information and belief, OneWest, in foreclosure sales held throughout the state, made and directed credit bids in situations where a party other than the present bene?ciary made the credit bid at the auction and where the trustee required payment in cash or cash equivalents as set forth in the relevant Notices of Trustee?s Sale. 46. By way of example and not by way of limitation, OneWest repeatedly and falsely represented that it was the present bene?ciary of the deed of trusts under foreclosure when it was not the present bene?ciary. This conduct includes without limitation situations in which OneWest assigned away ?all bene?cial interest? under the relevant deed of trust to another in recorded assignments that preceded the auction. This conduct also includes without limitation examples where OneWest, as servicer, directed the trustee to enter a credit bid for another entity when OneWest still held the bene?cial interest in the relevant deed of trust. In these circumstances, after the auction took place OneWest would assign its beneficial interest (through backdated or properly dated assigmnents) to the entity on whose behalf it directed the credit bid be made. 47. As a result of such repeated misrepresentations, OneWest has restrained competitive bidding, committed fraud or deceit on trustors, claimed and obtained offsets of bids that it made in foreclosure sales and exemptions under local tax ordinances that it was not legally entitled to receive. PEOPLE v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB COMPLAINT 48. This conduct violates Civil Code section 2924b and local tax ordinances. C. OneWest Purported to Substitute Foreclosure Trustees When It Lacked the Legal Authority to Do So and Misled Others Concerning the Date the New Trustees were Authorized to Act as Trustees. 49. Civil Code section 2934a authorizes a bene?ciary of a deed of trust to substitute the trustee under the deed of trust and sets forth procedures for effecting such a substitution of trustee. The statute provides, in subdivision that ?the trustee under a trust deed upon real property . . . given to secure an obligation to pay money .- . . may be substituted by the. recording in the county in which the property is located of a substitution executed and acknowledged by . . . all of the bene?ciaries under the trust deed . . . The statute further provides in subdivision that trustee named in a recorded substitution of trustee shall be deemed to be authorized to act as the trustee under the mortgage or deed of trust for all purposes ?'om the date the substitution is executed by the mortgagee, bene?ciaries, or by their authorized agents.? 50. In all relevant cases, OneWest repeatedly executed substitutions of trustee under deeds of trust in which it falsely represented that it was the present bene?ciary under the relevant deed of trust, when it had in fact already assigned away all of its bene?cial interest under the deed of trust to another party. Moreover, OneWest caused such improper substitutions to be recorded with county recorder of?ces throughout the State. 51. OneWest also executed Civil Code section 2934a substitutions of trustee with false, backdated dates such that it gave the appearance that substituted trustees were authorized to act as trustees before they actually were. 52. Such conduct violates Civil Code section 2934a and Penal Code sections 115 and 115.5. 53. In addition, in numerous instances, OneWest has caused trustees that it substituted without legal authority to conduct foreclosure sales. In many instances, these improperly substituted trustees went on to conduct foreclosure sales where homeowners lost their homes. PEOPLE v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB COMPLAINT Ix.) woo-genuineOneWest Violated Statutory Homeowner Notice Requirements and Waiting Periods. 54. Notice Requirements. Civil Code section 2934a, subdivision provides that if a substitution of trustee is executed, but not recorded, prior to or concurrently with the recording of the notice of default, the bene?ciary shall cause notice of the substitution to be mailed prior to or concurrently with the recording of the substitution to the homeowner and others. The statute further proves that an af?davit attesting to the mailing shall be attached to the substitution. 55. Civil Code section 2934a, subdivision provides that if a substitution of trustee is effected after a notice of default has been recorded but prior to the recording of the notice of sale, the bene?ciary shall cause a c0py of the substitution to be mailed, prior to, or concurrently with, the recording substitution to the homeowner and others. The statute ?irther proves that an af?davit attesting to the mailing shall be attached to the substitution. 56. OneWest has repeatedly and throughout the State violated Civil Code section 2934a, subdivisions by failing to attach affidavits of mailing to substitutions of trustee that it caused to be recorded when required to do so under the statute. On information and belief, OneWest ?thher violated Civil Code section 2934a, subdivisions by failing to make the mailings required under the statute. 57. Waiting Periods. Until the effective date of a recent amendment, Civil Code section 2924 provided that ?not less than three months shall elapse from the ?ling of the notice of default" before the issuance of a notice of sale. An amendment effective as of January 1, 20] altered that three-month waiting period. Civil Code section 2924 now provides that an authorized person ?may ?le a notice of sale . . . up to ?ve days before the lapse of the three- month period . . . provided that the date of sale is no earlier than three months and 20 days after the ?ling of the notice of default.? 58. OneWest has repeatedly violated the applicable versions of Civil Code section 2924 by causing sales to be noticed prematurely throughout the State in violation of the statutory waiting period. PEOPLE v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB COMPLAINT OneWest Violated Basic Statutory Requirements Regarding the Execution and Recordation of Instruments. 59. Government Code section 27287 provides that "before an instrument can be recorded its execution shall be acknowledged by the person executing it, or if executed by a corporation, by its president or secretary or other person executing it on behalf of the corporation.? 60. Government Code section 27201 provides that ?[e]ach instrument, paper, or notice shall contain an original signature or signatures, except as otherwise provided by law, or be a certi?ed copy of the origina 61. OneWest violated Civil Code sections 27201 and/or 27287 by causing instruments to be recorded with county recorder of?ces throughout the State that were not properly signed andlor acknowledged. By way of example and not by way of limitation, OneWest presented for recording instruments that were unsigned, as well as instruments whose acknowledgements were undated in violation of state law. F. OneWest Compromised the Integrity of Land Records, Deceived the Public, and Committed other Unfair Business Practices 62. As alleged herein, OneWest falsely represented that it had executed instruments on a speci?ed date, when in fact, the instruments were backdated and actually executed a?er the execution date set forth in the instrument. OneWest then caused those instruments to be ?led with county recorders for recordation in a manner that was likely to deceive members of the public. I 63. As alleged herein, OneWest also falsely represented its status as a bene?ciary and others status as a bene?ciary to gain advantages in the nonjudicial foreclosure process and related trustee?s sale transactions. OneWest then caused instruments containing such misrepresentations to be ?led with county recorders for recordation in a manner that was likely to deceive members of the public. 64. OneWest?s misconduct caused harm to multiple public groups who rely on the accuracy of publicly recorded foreclosure documents, including but not limited to purchasers, sellers, title companies, insurance companies, banks, trustees, servicing entities, and tax assessors. PEOPLE v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB COMPLAINT 65. By deceiving the public, including without limitation purchasers, prospective purchasers, title insurers, and others, OneWest undermined the accuracy of land record systems throughout the State and thereby undermined the marketplace for the buying and selling of land and related products (including without limitation the insurance, real estate sales, and lending markets). 66. The recordation of instruments containing false dates and their use by OneWest to foreclose on homeowners was also contrary to established public policy in favor of the preservation of the integrity of public records. 67. The practice of recording false instruments is also immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous, and is substantially injurious to consumers and other businesses because it deprives consumers of ?ll and accurate information in making decisions about real estate, arti?cially in?ates auction prices, and prevents homeowners who are faced with foreclosure from understanding and being able to address the proceedings against them and shortens the amount of time available to them to seek relief to prevent foreclosure. 68. These instruments included but were not limited to Substitutions of Trustee, Assignments of Deeds of Trust, Notices of Default, Notices of Trustee?s Sale, and Trustee?s Deeds upon Sale. 69. The recordation of instruments containing false statements and their use to foreclose on homeowners is further contrary to established public policy in favor of the preservation of the integrity of public records. G. Violation of the Procedural Rights of Homeowners and Others 70. OneWest?s misconduct includes: signing and backdating false instruments, acknowledging them to notaries, and then causing them to be recorded with county recorders throughout the state; making and directing imprOper credit bids; performing key acts in the foreclosure process without proper authority; improperly executing and acknowledging recorded instruments; and failing to comply with laws governing the timing and mailing of foreclosure instruments. This misconduct tends to rush the foreclosure process and deprive homeowners of their procedural rights and protections. PEOPLE v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB COMPLAINT 71. Defendants? failure to comply with such requirements violated the rights of homeowners and others in the foreclosure process. 72. The practice of violating the rights and protections afforded to homeowners in the foreclosure process is immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous, and is substantially injurious to consumers because it denied them the procedural rights accorded to them under California?s nonjudicial foreclosure laws. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANT VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION 17200 (UN FAIR COMPETITION) 73. The People realleg'e all paragraphs set forth above and incorporate them by reference as though they were fully set forth in this cause of action. I 74. Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in and continue to engage in, have aided and abetted and continue to aid and abet, and have conspired to and continue to conspire to engage in business acts or practices that constitute unfair competition as de?ned in the Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., in that such business acts and practices are unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent within the meaning of that statute. - I 75. The business acts and practices engaged in by Defendants thatviolate the Unfair Competition Law include: the ?ling of false instruments and documents for recordation related to residential foreclosures andfor affecting title to single-family residential property with county recorder of?ces; the purported substitutions of trustee, in which Defendants falsely represented they were the present bene?ciary under the relevant deed of - trust, when they had in fact already assigned away their bene?cial interest and therefore lacked legal authority to effect those substitutions; the misrepresentation of entities? bene?ciary status under deeds of trust at foreclosure sales and the improper taking of foreclosure sale bid offsets and local tax exemptions; PEOPLE v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB COMPLAINT 76. the failure to comply with statutory homeowner notice requirements related to substitutions of trustees and foreclosure waiting periods; and the failure to comply with basic statutory requirements related to the execution and recordation of documents. These business acts and practices are unlawful because they violate laws including Civil Code sections 2924, 2924b, and 2934a; Government Code sections 2720] and 27287; Penal Code sections 1 15 and 115.5; and city and county ordinances governing documentary transfer tax obligations. 77. 78. These business acts and practices are unfair in that Defendants have: (C) (6) undermined the integrity of the State's land title recordation system by causing the ?ling and recordation of false instruments and documents; caused homes to be sold at foreclosure sales by trustees that lacked the legal authority to conduct such sales; falsely obtained bene?ts as foreclosing bene?ciaries of deeds of trust pursuant to Civil Code section 2924b and local ordinances to which they were not legally entitled, interfered with these public trustees? sales, unlawfully ?xed and/or restrained bidding at such sales, and undertook activities which operated as a fraud or deceit upon homeowners and others; deprived homeowners of the bene?t of statutorily mandated notices and foreclosure waiting periods by failing to comply with Civil Code sections 2934a and 2924; and engaged in conduct that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers. These business acts and practices are fraudulent in that the false instruments and documents that Defendants caused to be ?led and recorded with county recorder of?ces are likely to deceive the public, particularly by virtue of their inclusion in public land title records and in that the auction activities prevented fair auctions. PEOPLE v. ONEWEST BANK, FSB COMPLAINT PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Pe0ple respect?Jlly request that the Court enter judgment in favor of the People and against Defendants, jointly and severally', as follows: 1. That Defendants, their successors, agents, representatives, employees, assigns and all persons who act in concert with Defendants be permanently enjoined from engaging in unfair competition as de?ned in Business and Professions Code section 17200, including, but not limited to, the acts and practices alleged in this Complaint, under the authority of Business and - Professions Code section 17203; 2. That the Court make such orders or judgments as may be necessary, including preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief, to prevent the use or employment by any Defendant of any practice which constitutes unfair competition or as may be necessary to restore to any person in interest any money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of such unfair competition, under the authority of Business and Professions Code section 17203; 3. That the Court assess'a civil penalty of $2,500 against each Defendant for each violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, in an amount according to proof, under the authority of Business and Professions Code section 17206; That the Court assess an additional civil penalty of 500 against each Defendant for each violation of Busmess and Professions Code section 17200 perpetrated against a senior citizen or disabled person, in an amount according to proof, under the authority of Business and Professions Code section 17206.1; PEOPLE v. ONEWEST BANK, SB COMPLAINT Ix.) DO 5. That the Peeple recover their costs of suit, including costs of investigation; 6. That the People receive all other relief to which they are legally entitled; and 7. That the Court award such other relief that it deems just, proper, and equitable. Dated: March [Date], 2013 Respect?Jlly Submitted, KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California BENJAMIN DIEHL Supervising Deputy Attorney General NICKLAS A. AKERS Supervising Deputy Attorney General Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA PEOPLE v. ON EWEST BANK, SB COMPLAINT