1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 LAWRENCE E. DICKENS, Case No.: 24-cv-01379-CAB-KSC

9 Plaintiff, Order Granting Summary Judgment 10 v. [Doc. No. 19] 11 FRANKLIN CREDIT MGMT CORP., et

al., 12 Defendants. 13

14 15 On March 3, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a brief showing why this case 16 must not be dismissed in light of Plaintiff’s modification of the lien in dispute. That brief 17 was due on May 18, 2025. Plaintiff never filed a response to the Court’s order. 18 The Court converts Defendants’ motion to dismiss, [Doc. No. 19], to a summary 19 judgment motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. See United States v. Ritchie,

(9th Cir. 2003). Defendants have supplied convincing summary judgment 21 evidence, supported by affidavit, that the Plaintiff has ratified the validity of the disputed 22 lien with a modification executed on January 2, 2025. [Doc. No. 22-1 at 3.] Moreover, 23 Plaintiff has already made a payment pursuant to that modification. [Doc. No. 22-2 at 4.] 24 Plaintiff has also dismissed the parallel bankruptcy case implicating the real property at 25 issue. [Doc. No. 22-3 at 12.] 26 Plaintiff’s operative complaint includes nine causes representing a mix of statutory, 27 common law, and equitable relief. [Doc. No. 15.] But the gravamen of the claims is the 28 allegation that Defendants defrauded Plaintiff by imposing a forged lien (referred to as the 1 || 2007 deed of trust). [See generally, Compl. at 15.] As discussed, this lien has been ratified 2 || by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has already made a payment on this lien based on a new, agreed upon 3 || schedule. 4 The Court is guided by the baseline principle that fraud requires some sort of 5 ||misrepresentation. Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc.

(Cal. 2003). The evidence 6 || that the Plaintiff has himself recognized the validity of the lien he challenges as fraudulent 7 || defeats every claim in his lawsuit. 8 Defendants have carried their burden to show there is no fraud involved in this case, 9 || defeating an essential element of Plaintiff's claims. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

|| 317, 323 (1986). Though Plaintiff was given ample opportunity to respond, he has not. As 11 |}such, judgment is granted in favor of Defendants. 12 13 It is so ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: March 24, 2025 € ZL 16 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 17 United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28