loan modification process.” (Opp’n 6:23-7:5, 7:15-17.) Plaintiffs have provided no authority to support their argument that lenders owe borrowers a duty of care not to misinform them about the loan modification process. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendant misrepresented to them that a permanent loan modification would be put into place are insufficient to form the basis of a negligence claim. However, Defendant has not shown Plaintiffs’ allegations that it falsified their income and the subject property’s value during the loan application process fall within its traditional role as a money lender. Therefore, these allegations are sufficient to state a negligence claim. See Watkinson v. MortgageIT, Inc., No. 10-cv-327-IEG, 2010 WL 2196083, at *8-9 (S.D.Cal. June 1, 2010) (<HOLDING>). b. Statute of Limitations Under California
holding similar allegations supported that the plaintiffs negligence claim did not accrue until plaintiffs loan payments exceeded his ability to pay holding that the knowing use of false testimony to obtain a conviction violates due process holding that where parties to an oral loan agreed that the loan would be repaid on demand the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the date plaintiff demanded repayment of the loan holding that overstating plaintiffs income and the value of the property on the loan application knowing both to be false stated a negligence claim holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition