Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 20STCV03642, Date: 2024-04-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV03642    Hearing Date: April 2, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

            Defendant Adam Jeffrey Hall’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens is GRANTED.

            On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff Sang Rim Son, as Trustee of the Sang Rim Son Living Trust UA dated 9/20/18 (Plaintiff) filed this suit against Defendants Adam Jeffrey Hall; Broker Solutions, Inc. dba New American Funding; Pacific Title Company; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., acting solely as a nominee under Deed of Trust dated 11/15/19, for Broker Solutions, Inc. dba New American Funding and its successors and assigns; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, alleging: (1) money due on default on note; (2) fraud; (3) negligence; (4) financial abuse of elder; (5) double damages for wrongful taking, concealment, or disposition of property of elder – Cal. Probate Code § 859; (6) treble damages for unfair or deceptive practices against senior citizen – Cal. Civ. Code § 3345; (7) quiet title; and (8) cancellation of written instruments.

            Defendant Adam Jeffrey Hall (Hall) moves for an order expunging the Notice of Pendency of Action (Lis Pendens) recorded on the property located at 2052 S. Hobart Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90018.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 405.30, “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…The claimant shall have the burden of proof under sections 405.31 and 405.32” (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.30.) The court must order the notice expunged if the court finds that the “pleading on which the notice is based does not contain a real property claim” or “claimant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim.” (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 405.31, 405.32.)  

Discussion

            This motion is made on the grounds that: (1) the seller’s case was dismissed for failure to appear and Hall’s counterclaim was settled, concluding all legal matters between parties; (2) there is no reasonable probability seller will prevail on the merits; and (3) the existence of the Lis Pendens is causing substantial prejudice to Hall’s ability to sell the property, hindering his right to enjoy and dispose of his real property.

            The motion is unopposed.

            A “real property claim” is defined in relevant part as a cause of action that affects title to or the right to possession of a specific real property. (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.4.) And with respect to a real property claim, “probable validity” means “is it more likely than not that the claimant will obtain judgment against defendant on the claim.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.3.) To determine whether the complaint involves a real property claim, the court considers the allegations of the complaint. (Urez Corp. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1141, 1149.) [“The issue is simply whether the action as pleaded is one that affects title or possession of the subject property.”] 

            Hall argues the initiation of the lawsuit by seller’s attorney, encompassing all parties raises doubts regarding the substantive foundation of the real property claim. Specifically, Hall contends subsequent dismissals of all other parties, leaving him as the sole-countersuer, underscore the insufficiency of evidentiary support. Similarly, Hall contends seller’s inability to settle legal bills resulted in the dismissal of her attorney and the case itself due to her failure to appear, which highlights seller’s lack of commitment and capacity to pursue a legitimate claim. Furthermore, Hall asserts his proactive choice to settle the counterclaim with the seller signifies a lack of confidence in the strength of the real property claim. Lastly, Hall argues that presence of the Lis Pendens impedes his right to enjoy and dispose of his real property, and subjects him to unwarranted financial and marketability challenges.

            The Court finds that Plaintiff cannot establish by preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of a real property claim because the Court dismissed the case in its entirety on November 12, 2020.

            In light of the foregoing, the motion to expunge lis pendens is GRANTED. 

Dated:  April 2, 2024

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.