Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 23SMCV06061, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 23SMCV06061, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV06061 Hearing Date: May 30, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Huynh v. Chiaravanond, et al., Case No. 23SMCV06061

Hearing Date: May 30, 2024

Defendants Pacific Shangrila LLC and ILU LLC’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens

Plaintiff Huynh sues defendants based on a dispute over the transfer of funds to purchase properties in Malibu. Defendants Pacific Shangrila LLC and ILU LLC move for an order expunging the lis pendens recorded on properties located at 20966 and 20990 Las Flores Mesa Drive in Malibu.

Defendants Pacific Shangrila LLC and ILU LLC’s request for judicial notice of the grant deeds for the properties, Exhs. A and B, are GRANTED, as it is a court document under Evidence Code 452(g). The court does admit the documents for their truth.

Defendants’ objections #1-2 are SUSTAINED as the declarant lacks personal knowledge of the statements.

Any party or a non-party having an interest in the property affected by a notice of lis pendens may move for expungement. Code Civ. Proc. §405.30. A lis pendens must be removed for being improper on account of (a) the pleading on which the notice is based not containing a real property claim, or (b) the claimant not being able to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 405.31, 405.32; Ziello v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 321, 331-32; Urez Corp. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1141, 1149.

In a motion to expunge a notice of lis pendens, the claimant who filed the lis pendens has the burden of proof. Code Civ. Proc. §405.30. That claimant, in opposing the motion to expunge the lis pendens, must demonstrate: (1) the action affects title to or right of possession of the real property; (2) in so far as the notice is concerned, the party recording the notice commenced the action for a proper purpose and in good faith; and (3) the probable validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence. Hunting World, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 67, 70; see also Code Civ. Proc. §405.30, et seq. Only admissible evidence may be considered. Burger v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1019.

Defendants Pacific and ILU move for an order expunging the lis pendens on the properties, arguing the complaint does not contain any cause of action that would affect the tile or possession of the properties. Rather, the complaint asserts a claim to an indirect interest in defendants Pacific and ILU. Citing Lewis v. Superior Court, defendants argue Huynh’s cause for action for quiet title does not support a lis pendens because he alleges he was defrauded into giving defendant Chiaravanond money based on alleged misrepresentations that he would hold an ownership interest in the LLCs, which would hold title to the properties purchased with such money; this claim would only entitle plaintiff to money damages.

Alternatively, defendants argue plaintiff cannot establish by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim because (1) plaintiff’s claim is defeated by the statute of fraud; (2) plaintiff solely claims an interest in Pacific and ILU, not the properties themselves; and (3) owners of equitable title cannot maintain a quiet title action against a legal property owner.

Plaintiff argues the complaint asserts a real property claim through the quiet title cause of action. Plaintiff argues this claim can be maintained based on his equitable interest in the subject properties based on the allegations of fraud.

Plaintiffs’ argument is unavailing. First, the cause of action for the quiet title is not based on a real property claim; it's based on a claim for interest in Pacific and ILU. Compl. ¶¶ 20-26. Second, plaintiff fails to provide authority that controverts defendants’ contention that an equitable owner can bring a quiet title action.

Finally, plaintiff fails to establish the probable validity of his real property claim by a preponderance of the evidence. The complaint alleges Chiaravanond induced plaintiff to invest in two separate LLCs, which purchased, held and managed the properties. Id. The revenue generated from the properties would fund Huynh’s retirement. Id. ¶ 26. The claim does not involve the interest in or possession of the real properties, but, rather, the proceeds generated from them. GRANTED.