Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 22AHCV00098, Date: 2022-08-01 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22AHCV00098 Hearing Date: August 1, 2022 Dept: X
Tentative Ruling
Judge Joel L. Lofton,
Department X
HEARING DATE: August
1, 2022 TRIAL DATE: No date set.
CASE: SERENA ANN BELL v.
VIOLET Z. SCHMID, as Trustee for the GERALD and VIOLET SCHMID TRUST; VIOLET Z.
SCHMID; RODEO REALTY, INC. – BEVERLY HILLS; and DOES 1-20 inclusive.
CASE NO.: 22AHCV00098
MOTION
TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Violet Z. Schmid
RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Serena Ann Bell
SERVICE: Filed
July 8, 2022
OPPOSITION: Filed
July 19, 2022
REPLY: Filed July 25, 2022
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Defendant Violet Z. Schmid moves for an order to expunge two Lis Pendens
pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 405.30.
Defendant also requests
an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 405.38.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a dispute regarding
the purchase of real property located at 1968 El Molino Avenue, Altadena,
California 91001 (“Subject Property”). Plaintiff Serena Ann Bell (“Plaintiff”)
alleges that Defendants Violet Z. Schmid, individually and as Trustee for the
Gerald and Violet Schmid Trust, and Rodeo Realty, Inc. - Beverly Hills
(“Defendants”) failed to comply with the terms of the purchase agreement.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to obtain the necessary permits for an
Accessory Dwelling Unit (“ADU”) and failed to provide $150,000 in agreed-upon, short-term
financing to cover the shortfall between the purchase price and appraisal
value.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
attempted to enforce the purchase agreement. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
are also attempting to relist and market the Subject Property for sale.
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (“FAC”) on April 25, 2022, alleging
two causes of action for (1) breach of contract and (2) fraud.
TENTATIVE RULING
Defendant’s
motion is denied without prejudice due to the ordered stay of the proceeding.
JUDICIAL NOTICE
Defendant’s
requests for judicial notice for exhibits A, B, C, and D, are granted pursuant
to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).)
LEGAL STANDARD
“A party who asserts a claim to real
property can record a notice of lis pendens, which serves as notice to
prospective purchasers, encumbrancers and transferees that there is litigation
pending that affects the property.” (J & A Mash & Barrel, LLC v.
Superior Court of Fresno County (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 1, 15 (“J & A
Mash”.) “ ‘A party to an action who asserts a real property claim may
record a notice of pendency of action in which that real property claim is
alleged,’ commonly known as a lis pendens. (§ 405.20.) Such a party
is a “ ‘[c]laimant’ ” for purposes of the lis pendens statute. (§ 405.1.) Once recorded, any party with an interest in the
property can move to expunge the lis pendens pursuant to the procedure set
forth in section 405.30.” (Id. at p. 16.)
“A comment to section 405.30 identifies four bases upon which expungement
may be sought: (1) the lis pendens is void and invalid (§ 405.23),
(2) the action as pleaded does not contain a real property claim (§ 405.31), (3) the claimant fails to establish the probable
validity of the claim (§ 405.32), and (4) monetary relief
provides an adequate remedy (§ 405.33).” (J &
A Mash, supra, 74 Cal.Ap.5th at p. 16.)
DISCUSSION
The
Present Action has been Stayed
On July 13, 2022,
this Court granted Plaintiff’s request to stay the pending action so that the
parties may submit their dispute to contractual arbitration.
“Once a
court grants the petition to compel arbitration and stays the action at law,
the action at law sits in the twilight zone of abatement with the trial court
retaining merely a vestigial jurisdiction over matters submitted to
arbitration. This vestigial jurisdiction over the action at law consists solely
of making the determination, upon conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, of
whether there was an award on the merits . . . or not (at which point the
action at law may resume to determine the rights of the parties).” (Brock v.
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1790, 1796.)
Here, although
the present motion was filed before the Court’s stay of the present case, the
action has been stayed. The Court declines to attempt to reclaim jurisdiction
over the present matter.
CONCLUSION
Defendant’s
motion is denied without prejudice due to the ordered stay of the proceeding. The case management conference is ordered off
calendar. The next court date remains
Nov 16, 2022, at 8:30 as a status hearing for the arbitration. Moving party to give notice.
Dated: August 1, 2022 ___________________________________
Joel
L. Lofton
Judge
of the Superior Court
Parties who intend
to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their
intention to
submit. Parties intending to appear are
strongly encouraged to appear remotely.