Judge Colin Leis, Case Number: 22STCV38730, Date: 2024-01-11 Tentative Ruling

On December 13, 2022, Plaintiff Anoosh Sarkis Harootoon (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against Defendants Aris Shahnazari and Armineh Estepanian (Defendants). Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: (1) Quiet Title, (2) Constructive Trust, (3) Fraud, Deceit, and Misrepresentation, (4) Conversion, (5) Accounting, (6) Financial Elder Abuse, (7) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress.

A lis pendens may be ordered expunged if the operative complaint does not contain a real property claim or the plaintiff cannot establish the claim’s probable validity by a preponderance of the evidence. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 405.31, 405.32.) The burden of proof is on the party opposing the motion to expunge. (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.32.)

In support of her opposition, Plaintiff argues in part that her complaint contains a real property claim: namely, a cause of action for quiet title. (Complaint, ¶¶ 19-24.) The court agrees. Next, Plaintiff contends that she is likely to prevail on the merits of her quiet title claim. (Water for Citizens of Weed California v. Churchwell White LLP (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 270, 281 [“The purpose of a quiet title action is to establish title against any adverse claims to property or any interest therein.”].) In support, Plaintiff offers evidence that aims to undermine Defendants’ credibility. Plaintiff also submits evidence that she financially contributed to Defendants’ down payment on the property and paid for improvements to the property. (Harootoon Decl., ¶¶ 3-10; Exs. 2-7, Ex. 8, p. 98.) But title to the property was placed in Defendants’ names only. (Complaint, ¶ 9.) Plaintiff has not cited any authority demonstrating how Plaintiff’s contributions to the subject property creates a fee interest. Thus, Plaintiff has not met her burden of showing the probable validity to her quiet title claim.[1]

Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that her cause of action for constructive trust is another real property claim. The court disagrees. In this context, “[r]eal property claim means the cause or causes of action in a pleading which would, if meritorious, affect (a) title to, or the right to possession of, specific real property.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.4.) By contrast, a constructive trust is an equitable remedy rather than a substantive claim for relief. (American Master Lease LLC v. Idanta Partners, Ltd. (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 1451, 1485.) To the extent Plaintiff seeks a constructive trust to recoup funds that Defendants allegedly converted, a lis pendens is not proper. (BGJ Assocs., LLC v. Sup.Ct. (M2B2, LLC) (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 952, 972.) Thus, Plaintiff has not met her burden for the purposes of Defendants’ motion to expunge the lis pendens.

Defendants’ counsel seeks attorney fees. (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.38.) But Defendants’ counsel has not requested a specific amount or substantiated his request. Thus, the court declines to award attorney fees.

The court grants Defendants’ motion to expunge the lis pendens. The court denies Defendants’ request for attorney fees.

[1] The court notes that Plaintiff has not established a probable validity of her quiet title claim for the purposes of Defendant’s motion to expunge. But this finding does not preclude Plaintiff from later prevailing on her claim as more evidence materializes in the discovery process.