Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 21TRCV00315, Date: 2022-12-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00315    Hearing Date: December 20, 2022    Dept: B

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT – SOUTHWEST DISTRICT

Honorable Gary Y. Tanaka                                                                                  Tuesday, December 20, 2022

Department B                                                                                                                             Calendar No. 6

PROCEEDINGS

Ricardo Gomez, et al. v. Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, et al.   

21TRCV00315

1.      Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens

TENTATIVE RULING

            Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens is granted.

            Background

            Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed on April 22, 2021. Plaintiffs allege the following facts. On or about January 26, 2007, Plaintiffs obtained a second mortgage loan from Defendant Great Western Home Loans in the amount of $102,000.00.  The second mortgage loan was secured by a deed of trust recorded against the subject property located at 1131 South Truro Avenue, Inglewood, CA 90301, on February 1, 2007, in the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office as Instrument No. 20070214681.  (Complaint, Exhibit C.)  Plaintiffs had previously obtained a loan modification of their first mortgage and Plaintiffs believe that this modification also applied to the second mortgage.  Plaintiffs allege that Defendants charged usurious interest.  Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are attempting to wrongfully foreclose on the subject property.  Plaintiffs allege the following causes of action: 1. Usury and/or Unconscionable Lending Against Defendant Lender; 2. Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; 3. Violation of Civ. Code 2924.17; 4. Violation of B&P Code 17200; 5. Cancellation of Instruments; 6. Quiet Title.  

            On June 4, 2021, Defendant Great Western Home Loans, Inc. was dismissed.  On November 30, 2021, Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC’s Demurrer to Complaint was sustained with 20 days leave to amend.  On April 11, 2022, after Plaintiff failed to amend, Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC’s Motion to Dismiss Action was granted.

            Request for Judicial Notice

            Defendant’s request for judicial notice is granted pursuant to Evidence Code Section 452(c) and (h).

            Motion to Expunge

            “At any time after notice of pendency of action has been recorded, any party, or any nonparty with an interest in the real property affected thereby, may apply to the court in which the action is pending to expunge the notice. . . Evidence or declarations may be filed with the motion to expunge the notice. The court may permit evidence to be received in the form of oral testimony, and may make any orders it deems just to provide for discovery by any party affected by a motion to expunge the notice. The claimant shall have the burden of proof under Sections 405.31 and 405.32.”  Code Civ. Proc., § 405.30.

            “In proceedings under this chapter, the court shall order the notice expunged if the court finds that the pleading on which the notice is based does not contain a real property claim. The court shall not order an undertaking to be given as a condition of expunging the notice where the court finds the pleading does not contain a real property claim.”  Code Civ. Proc., § 405.31.  “In proceedings under this chapter, the court shall order that the notice be expunged if the court finds that the claimant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim.”   Code Civ. Proc., § 405.32.

            Code Civ. Proc., § 405.4 states: “‘Real 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 or (b) the use of an easement identified in the pleading, other than an easement obtained pursuant to statute by any regulated public utility.” An action for money on a contract is not a real property claim even if it has some relation to real property. Ziello v. Superior Court (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 321, 332.

            “The court shall direct that the party prevailing on any motion under this chapter be awarded the reasonable attorney's fees and costs of making or opposing the motion unless the court finds that the other party acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of attorney's fees and costs unjust.”  Code Civ. Proc., § 405.38.

            Defendant moves to expunge the Notice of Pendency of Action (Lis Pendens) recorded by Plaintiff on May 24, 2021, as instrument number 20210829445, in the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office.  Defendant also moves for attorneys’ fees pursuant to CCP § 405.38.

            The Court directs the parties to the Court’s ruling on Defendant’s Demurrer to First Amended Complaint and Motion to Dismiss Action.  Pursuant to the Court’s ruling, the Court has ruled that Plaintiff has failed to state a real property claim.  Because the Court has found that Plaintiff has failed to state facts to demonstrate the existence of a real property claim, the motion to expunge lis pendens is granted.

            Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to CCP § 405.38 is granted.

            “The trial court has “broad authority” to determine the amount of a reasonable attorneys’ fees.  PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095.  “[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.”  Id. [“California courts have consistently held that a computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys' fee award.”].  “The experienced trial judge is the best judge of the value of professional services rendered in his court, and while his judgment is of course subject to review, it will not be disturbed unless the appellate court is convinced that it is clearly wrong.”  Ketchum v. Moses (2001) 24 Cal.4th 1122, 1132 (internal quotation omitted.)  An attorney who works on a contingent fee basis may be entitled to a fee enhancement or multiplier depending on the work involved and nature of the case. See Id. Thus, Defendant is entitled to attorneys’ fees under the lodestar method based on the reasonable amount of time the attorney spent multiplied by a reasonable rate.

            Defendant requests attorneys’ fees based on total time expended of 7 hours of work at $375/per hour, plus $60 filing fee.  The Court finds that the hourly rate is reasonable based upon the attorney’s experience and the nature of the work involved.  The Court finds that the time expended is also reasonable.  Therefore, the Court awards reasonable attorneys’ fees and filing fee in the sum of $2,685.00.  Plaintiff is ordered to pay this sum to Defendant within 30 days of this date.

            Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.