The statutory repeal doctrine did not moot this case alleging violations of pre-2018 Civ. Code 2923.55 and 2923.6 since most of the substantive provisions of those sections were reenacted as of January 1, 2018, in 2923.5 and 2924.11.  Nevertheless, the trial court correctly granted defendant summary judgment.  As to the 2923.55 claim, defendant presented evidence of some 30 telephone calls and other contacts it had with plaintiffs before filing the notice of default.  No triable issue of fact was raised by plaintiff’s declaration which merely said he didn’t recall those contacts rather than denying that they occurred.  Also, section 2923.55 could be satisfied by (a) contacts initiated by the borrower as well as by contacts initiated by the lender or loan servicer and (b) review of the borrower’s loan modification application.  As to the 2923.6 claim, the defendant showed it had reviewed and denied two of plaintiffs’ loan modification applications.  Plaintiff’s effort to raise a triable issue of fact on appeal about the denial notice’s not explaining how to appeal the decision went nowhere because the complaint did not allege that defendant had violated section 2923.6 in that manner, and the plaintiff cannot raise issues outside the pleadings to defeat summary judgment.

California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1 (Aaron, J.); November 7, 2018; 28 Cal. App. 5th 1109