Every week: one real lawsuit filed over a California foreclosure, taken apart.
The File
Case: Jawahar Gidwani v. Simon Ticho Defined Benefit Plan
Court: U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Filed: September 30, 2026. Represented by counsel.
Property: Single-family property, San Francisco.
Loan: Junior lien. $800,000, recorded January 2023.
Claims: Five. Accuracy of foreclosure documents, reinstatement charges, unfair business practices, debt collection, and wrongful foreclosure.
Relief sought: A restraining order and injunction against collecting on the loan and against any sale, compensatory damages, and disgorgement.
Exhibits attached: None.
The Timeline
3/1/2007. A $3,095,000 deed of trust records on the property. County records show it as the first lien.
1/23/2023. The $800,000 deed of trust records, securing a note dated 1/19/2023.
11/8/2023. The Notice of Default records. It states an installment due 6/1/2023 and later installments went unpaid. It also states an advance by the beneficiary of $147,582.72 to keep a prior lien current, and $204,745.16 to cure as of 11/7/2023.
4/11/2024. The first Notice of Trustee’s Sale records, with an estimate of $1,076,565.65 and a sale date of 5/9/2024.
5/7/2024. The complaint alleges the borrower filed chapter 11 bankruptcy, two days before that sale date.
11/20/2024. The complaint alleges a stipulation the bankruptcy court accepted set the interest rate at 12% from this date, allowed 18% on a default, and required payoff in full by 7/1/2025.
7/3/2025. The complaint alleges the servicer issued a payoff demand of $1,179,129.74 that included no default interest. The complaint alleges the borrower’s refinance lender then withdrew.
6/8/2026. The second Notice of Trustee’s Sale records, with an estimate of $1,390,401.91 and a sale date of 7/2/2026.
8/2026. The complaint alleges the servicer issued a payoff demand of $1,664,298.
8/20/2026. The foreclosure trustee holds the sale. A third party places the highest bid, $2,010,000, per the trustee’s website.
9/30/2026. The complaint is filed, 41 days after the sale.
The Money
$800,000.00. Principal of the note, per the recorded deed of trust.
$204,745.16. Amount to cure as of 11/7/2023, per the recorded Notice of Default.
$147,582.72. Advance by the beneficiary to keep a prior lien current, per the recorded Notice of Default.
$1,179,129.74. The complaint alleges this is the servicer’s payoff demand of 7/3/2025.
$1,390,401.91. Estimate on the Notice of Trustee’s Sale recorded 6/8/2026.
$1,664,298. The complaint alleges this is the servicer’s payoff demand of August 2026.
$245,000. The complaint alleges the August payoff demand included an advance of this amount to the first lien lender.
$7,000,000. The complaint alleges this is the value of the property and the amount of a cash offer the borrower had on the day of the sale.
$1,664,198.61. The opening bid for the 8/20/2026 sale, per the trustee’s website.
$2,010,000.00. The highest bid at the 8/20/2026 sale, per the trustee’s website, which lists the buyer as a third party.
$3,095,000. The first deed of trust recorded 3/1/2007, per county records.
Claim 1. Accurate Foreclosure Documents (§ 2924.17)
The borrower says the Notice of Trustee’s Sale overstates what he owes. The borrower also pleads that he defaulted and that a stipulation allowed an 18% default rate.
What the statute requires
Section 2924.17 requires a mortgage servicer to make sure the foreclosure documents it records are accurate and complete and supported by competent and reliable evidence. Those documents include the Notice of Default and the Notice of Trustee’s Sale.
Before recording, the servicer must review evidence of the default and of the right to foreclose. A mortgage servicer is the party that collects payments and administers the loan account.
What the borrower alleges
The borrower alleges the servicer recorded the Notice of Trustee’s Sale for $1,390,402 without reviewing competent and reliable evidence. He alleges the loan balance could not have reached that figure by June 8, 2026.
He alleges that, if the July 2025 payoff of $1,179,129.74 is correct, he owed no more than $1,363,129 on that date. He seeks an injunction and attorney’s fees.
What the record shows
The Notice of Trustee’s Sale recorded 6/8/2026 states an estimate of $1,390,401.91 and says accrued interest and additional advances will increase the figure before the sale.
The Notice of Default recorded 11/8/2023 states an advance by the beneficiary of $147,582.72 to keep a prior lien current. It lists advances to senior liens, taxes, and insurance that the beneficiary may make after recording.
The complaint attaches no exhibits. Neither payoff demand, the stipulation, nor the note is attached.
Claim 2. Limits on Reinstatement Charges (§ 2924c)
The borrower says the lender charged something the statute does not allow. The complaint never says what.
What the statute requires
Section 2924c lets a borrower cure a default by paying these amounts:
The amounts in default that are shown in the Notice of Default.
The amounts in default on recurring obligations that came due after it.
Reasonable costs actually incurred in enforcing the loan.
Trustee’s or attorney’s fees within the statute’s schedule.
What the borrower alleges
The borrower alleges the lender demanded fees and arrears that were not owed, as a condition of reinstatement. He alleges the $1,390,402 in the Notice of Trustee’s Sale and the $1,664,298 in the August 2026 payoff demand include items the statute does not permit.
He repeats the $1,363,129 figure from Claim 1. He alleges credit damage, fees charged to the loan, and attorney’s fees. The count names no fee or charge.
What the record shows
The Notice of Default recorded 11/8/2023 states $204,745.16 to cure as of 11/7/2023.
The complaint attaches neither payoff demand, so the items in either demand cannot be read from the filing.
Claim 3. Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.)
The borrower builds this claim on the first two claims and adds no new facts.
What the statute requires
The unfair competition law covers business practices that are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent.
What the borrower alleges
The borrower alleges the violations of §§ 2924.17 and 2924c pleaded in the first two claims are unlawful business practices. He seeks restitution or disgorgement of interest collected on the loan “at the usurious rate,” an injunction, costs, and attorney’s fees.
The complaint pleads no usury claim and names no rate it calls usurious.
What the record shows
The complaint pleads no fact for this claim beyond the notice amounts and payoff amounts in the first two claims.
Claim 4. Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.)
The borrower alleges the servicer misstated the debt in the August 2026 payoff demand. The complaint never says what the loan was for.
What the statute requires
The complaint relies on the provisions that bar a debt collector from misrepresenting the amount of a debt and from collecting an amount the loan agreement does not authorize.
What the borrower alleges
The borrower alleges the servicer is a debt collector because it collected on the loan after the default. He alleges the August 2026 payoff demand of $1,664,298 misrepresented the amount of the debt.
He alleges he is a natural person who owes the debt through his interest in the property. He seeks actual damages, a $1,000 civil penalty, attorney’s fees, and costs.
What the record shows
The recorded deed of trust does not state what the loan was for.
The complaint pleads that the borrower has lived in the property as his primary residence since 1986. It pleads nothing about the purpose of the loan.
Claim 5. Wrongful Foreclosure
The borrower calls the sale wrongful. The count pleads no facts of its own and rests on the amounts pleaded in the first two claims.
What the borrower alleges
The borrower alleges that on August 20, 2026, the lender “wrongfully foreclosed” and caused an “illegal, fraudulent, or willfully oppressive sale” of the property. He seeks money damages for the loss of the property and his investment in it, and asks the court to vacate the foreclosure.
The count incorporates the earlier paragraphs and adds no fact of its own.
What the record shows
The trustee’s website shows the sale held 8/20/2026, with a highest bid of $2,010,000 and a third-party buyer.
The complaint does not allege that any foreclosure notice was missing, late, or mailed to the wrong address.
🔒 Paid below: the takeaway and three lessons for lenders.
