HBORs- robo-signing statute, CC 2924.17. Section (b) requires a servicer to ensure that it has reviewed competent and reliable evidence to substantiate . . . [its] right to foreclose. Section (a) also mandates that foreclosure documents, including assignments of the loan, be accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence.

borrower alleged that the assignment of the DOT was robosigned because a trustee employee signed the document, falsely purporting to be beneficiarys employee. Servicer argued that borrowers claim fails, even if allegations were true, because he had not alleged harm re the purported robosigning. But, court looked to plain language of the operative, relief-granting statute, CC 2924.12(a), finding: borrowers need not show harm/injury to bring viable robosigning claims u/HBOR. Thus, court denied servicers MTD on that basis. Court did agree w/Svcr that borrowers allegations were conclusory; lacked factual support: Borrower did not allege that the trustees employee lacked authority to sign on behalf of beneficiary, nor that she failed to conduct the due diligence required by section 2924.17. dismissed w/LTA.

CCC 2924(a)(6) is effective from Jan. 1, 2013 - Jan. 1, 2018, and applies to all mortgage loans and every licensed foreclosure entity in CA; requires svcrs provide proof of standing to 4clz. "No entity can record or cause an NOD to be recorded or otherwise initiate the foreclosure process unless it is the holder of the beneficial interest under the mortgage or DOT, the original or substituted trustee under the DOT, or the designated agent of the holder of the beneficial interest. No agent of the holder of the beneficial interest, original or substituted trustee may record a notice of default or otherwise commence the foreclosure process except when acting within the scope of authority designated by the holder of the beneficial interest."In addition, large Servicers such as NATIONSTAR must prove their standing, and ensure that all recorded documents (including the NOD filed this year) are accurate, complete and supported by "competent and reliable evidence" pursuant to Civil Code 2924.17, which upon information and belief NATIONSTAR has not done here.Defendants, who are undeniably involved in mortgage loans, have failed to establish that they are the holder of the beneficial interest under the mortgage or DOT, the original or substituted trustee under the deed of trust, or the designated agent of the holder of the beneficial interest.

G. HBOR Specifically Provides Injunctive Relief for the Above ViolationsWithout Any Action, Including Tender, Required of the Borrower97. Cal Civ Code 2924.l2(a) is effective from Jan 1, 2013 to Jan 1, 2018, appliesto every licensed foreclosure entity that exceeds 175 residential foreclosures peryear in California, and states in pertinent part:(1) If a trustee's deed upon sale has not been recorded, a borrower may bring anaction for injunctive relief to enjoin a material Violation of Section 2923.55[Notice], 2923.6 [Dual Tracking], 2923.7 [SPOC), 2924.9 [Post-NOD Disclosures], 2924.10 [written Acknowledgement], 2924.11 (Servicer Obligations], or 2924.17 [Competent & Reliable Evidence].(2) Any injunction shall remain in place and any trustee's sale shall be enjoined until the court determines that the mortgage servicer, mortgage, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has corrected and remedied the violation or violations giving rise to the action for injunctive relief...Civil Code 2924.12(a) [designations, emphasis added].

The language of Civil Code 2924.12(a) makes the remedies for violation ofthe sections set forth above mandatory, and requires no action whatsoever by the Plaintiff borrower. Ever since "The Tender Rule" was created in the case of Lona v. Citibank. N.A., 202 Cal. App. 4th 89, 112 (2011), the steady trend has been to carveout exceptions to the rule. A longtime exception is that "Tender is not required if it would be inequitable." Humboldt Sav. Bank v. McClerverty, 161 Cal. 285, 291 (1911), but there is also a strong recent trend toward finding tender inapplicable in cases seeking to enjoin a pending foreclosure sale, such as the case at bar. See,e.g., Mabry v. Superior Court, 185 Cal. App. 4th 208, 213 (2010); Intengan v. Bank of Am., 214 Cal. App. 4th 1047, 1053-54 (2013); Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home Loans, 211 Cal. App. 4th 1250, 1281 (2012). See also, Tha v. Suntrust Mortg., Inc., No. KC066003 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 22, 2013) (tender not required pre-foreclosure where CC 2923.6 claim would negate the necessity for a sale); Mojanoff v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. LC100052 (Cal. Super. Ct. May 28, 2013) (the mandatory language in HBOR's enforcement statutes would be irrationally optimistic if courts regularly applied strict tender rules).

Defendants ignored the HBOR even after it became effective on January l, 2013, and their violations of the statute constitute negligence per se.