Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 19STCV39580, Date: 2025-01-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV39580    Hearing Date: January 22, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Intervenors’ motion to expunge lis pendens is DENIED, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

On 11/24/2020, Plaintiffs Terry Herrera and Teodora Herrera (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed suit against Full Circle Real Estate Solutions, Inc., the Mum Group, Marvin U. Mangabat, and Erik Lederman, alleging: (1) intentional misrepresentation; (2) concealment; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) conversion; (5) rescission; (6) cancellation of written instrument; (7) quiet title; (8) violation of Civil Code section 2945, et seq.; (9) financial elder abuse; and (10) declaratory relief.

            On 12/24/2024, Intervenors Massis Tarbinian and Houry Kelian (collectively, Intervenors) moved to expunge lis pendens.

Discussion

            Intervenors move to expunge the lis pendens recorded by Plaintiffs on the ground that they have failed to establish the probable validity of a real property claim.

            After review, the Court finds expungement is not appropriate at this time.

A lis pendens must be supported by a claim with probable validity to affect title. (CCP §§ 405.31, 405.32; Howard S. Wright Constr. Co. v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 314, 318.)

This action was filed on November 4, 2019 and a lis pendens was recorded on December 23, 2019. (RJN Exs. 1, 2.) Intervenors bought the Property at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale and a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale naming Intervenors as owners was recorded on March 9, 2022. (RJN Exs. 3-5.) Intervenors filed their own quiet title action against Plaintiffs and the other defendants. (RJN Ex. 6.) Plaintiffs did not amend the operative second amended complaint to name Intervenors in their quiet title claim. (RJN, Fact No. 1.)

Neither the jury instructions nor the special verdict form asked the jury to make findings of fact regarding title to the Property. (RJN, Ex. 20, pp. 248-249.) The jury returned a special verdict in Plaintiffs’ favor on their financial elder abuse claim. (RJN Ex. 9, pp. 119-120.) Initially, this court entered Plaintiffs’ proposed judgment, which purported to quiet title in favor of Plaintiffs. (RJN Exs. 8,9.)

However, Intervenors filed four post-judgment motions, including a motion for new trial; for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and to vacate the judgment. (RJN Exs. 10-18.) This Court granted Intervenors’ motion for new trial and denied the other motions and the Court amended the judgment to omit the quiet title in Plaintiffs’ favor or adjudication of claims involving Intervenors. (RJN, Exs. 20 and 21.) This Court found that the quiet title claim was not submitted to the jury and that there was no verdict upon which to base a judgment quieting title. (RJN Ex. 20, pp. 248-250.) This Court ruled that it lacked the authority to quiet title in Plaintiffs’ favor and that any such judgment exceeded the Court’s authority. (RJN Ex. 20, pp. 248-249.)

A lis pendens must be supported by a claim with probable validity to affect title. (CCP §§ 405.31, 405.32; Howard S. Wright Constr. Co. v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 314, 318.) Under California law, trustee’s deeds issued through properly conducted foreclosure sales are presumed valid, reflecting the integrity and finality of such transactions. (Harbour Vista, LLC v. HSBC Mortgage Services Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1496, 1502 (trustee’s deeds are entitled to a presumption of regularity and validity).

Here, a new trial is pending on issues affecting ownership of the property. Moreover, while Intervenors note in reply that Plaintiffs’ appeal of the Court’s new trial motion was dismissed on 1/15/2025, this ignores the fact that Plaintiffs were initially awarded the property in the underlying judgment. While the Court set aside this judgment, the Intervenors’ interest in the property is contingent on the outcome of the new trial which has not yet occurred. In other words, the Court’s ruling did not quiet title in Defendant’s favor, but rather set aside the judgment quieting title in Plaintiffs’ favor given a determination that the quiet title claim was not submitted to the jury and that there was no verdict upon which to base a judgment quieting title. The Court then ordered a new trial.   

The Court therefore agrees that Plaintiffs would be severely prejudiced if Intervenors were able to exercise full rights over the property prior to the new trial being conducted. While Intervenors argue that the new trial is solely on the issue of restitution, this argument seems to suggest Intervenors are entitled to ownership of the property and restitution. There was nothing in the Court’s ruling to suggest this.

“A lis pendens clouds title until the litigation is resolved or the lis pendens is expunged, and any party acquiring an interest in the property after the action is filed will be bound by the judgment.” (Slintak v. Buckeye Ret. Co., L.L.C. (2006) 139 Cal. App. 4th 575, 586–87.)

            Here, litigation is not yet resolved, and expungement of the lis pendens is premature.  

Based on the foregoing, Intervenors’ motion to expunge lis pendens is denied, without prejudice.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.