Particularly as amended in 2019, Civ. Code 2923.7 requires a loan servicer to appoint a SPOC for each borrower who seeks a foreclosure alternative.  The borrower need not specifically request a SPOC in order to trigger the statute.  Interpreting Civ. Code 2924.12, the decision holds that for post-foreclosure damages purposes, the court must analyze harm in three steps.  First, did the plaintiff suffer actual economic damages?  Expenses incurred in fighting foreclosure suffice for this purpose. Second, do those damages “result from” the alleged HBOR violation?  An allegation that had a SPOC been appointed, plaintiff would have gotten a loan mod or pursue other foreclosure avoidance alternatives is enough.  Third, was the defendant’s violation “material”–i.e., s one that affected the borrower’s loan obligations, disrupted the borrower’s loan modification process, or otherwise harmed the borrower?  Failure to appoint a SPOC is material.  Pre-2018 claims of dual tracking survive the sunsetting and reenactment of Civ. Code 2923.6.  Issuing only an oral denial of a loan modification is a material violation of Civ. Code 2923.6. In this case, the borrower also stated a claim under Civ Code 2924b, a statute requiring the beneficiary and trustee to give notice of default and sale to those who specially request it.  There is a private right of action for failure to comply, and plaintiff adequately alleged she received no notice of sale though she requested it.