TENTATIVE RULING

          The Defendants Citibank, N.A. and Verdugo Trustee Service Corporation demurrer to the First Amended Complaint and each of the five causes of action pled against them is OVERRULED.

          The only challenge to the sufficiency of the complaint is defendants argument that all of Plaintiff s causes of action against Citibank are time-barred and that the discovery rule does not apply.

          Plaintiff argues that it did not discover, nor did it have reason to discover, that it was harmed by Defendants’ wrongful conduct until Soriya defaulted on the Countrywide Loan.

          A plaintiff who intends to rely on the discovery rule must allege specific facts showing (1) the time and manner of the discovery, and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence. CAMSIIV, 230 Cal.App.3d at 1536-1537.  

          The plaintiff alleges discovery on July 22, 2015 when the borrower defaulted on her loan with plaintiff and it was forced to investigate the documents related to the property now subject to foreclosure. FAC ¶23.  The court finds that the plaintiff was reasonably diligent in not investigating the documents earlier.  It appears that the plaintiff had no reason to investigate based upon the facts pled.

          The plaintiff alleges that Citibank provided a payout amount of $117,843.14 and that Citibank received such payment amount from the Countrywide loan. FAC ¶¶ 19- 21.  The plaintiff alleges that Soriya not only had but fulfilled her contractual and legal obligation to ask Citibank to reconvey the DOT.  FAC ¶¶19, 21, 26, 32.

          Based upon these facts pled, it was reasonable for plaintiff not to further investigate to make sure that Citibank reconvened the DOT.  The delayed discovery rule applies.  The complaint was filed 1/6/16.  The statute of limitations will expire on July 22, 2016 at the earliest. Therefore, the complaint was timely filed and the demurrer is overruled.