Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 22STCV10315, Date: 2024-07-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV10315    Hearing Date: July 16, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: July 16, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Motion to Expunge Notice of Pendency of Action and Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs  

Moving Party: Defendant Adnan Mohamed Aljojo

Responding Party: Plaintiff Adnan Mohamed Aljojo

T/R:     The Motion to Expunge Notice of Pendency of Action and Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED IN PART.

            DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at SMCdept54@lacourt.org with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

On March 24, 2022, Plaintiff Emad Aljojo sued Defendant Adnan Mohamed Aljojo, alleging a single cause of action for Cancellation of Written Instrument by Fraud in Factum and Non-Delivery. Plaintiff and Defendant are siblings. Plaintiff alleges Defendant recorded a fraudulent deed transferring Plaintiff’s real property to Defendant.

Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Expunge Notice of Pendency of Action and Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. Defendant moves to expunge the lis pendens filed by Plaintiff as to 4716 Melrose Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90029 Defendant also seeks attorney’s fees in the sum of $10,500.00.

The motion is made on the grounds that “Plaintiff’s alleged real property claim lacks probable validity . . . and/or the lis pendens is void and invalid for failure to comply with the service and filing requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 405.22.” (Not. of Mot. at p. ii:14-18.)

JUDICIAL NOTICE

            The Court GRANTS the parties’ respective requests for judicial notice. (Evid. Code §§ 452, 453.)

ANALYSIS

When a motion to expunge a lis pendens is filed, the burden is on the opposing party to show that the complaint contains allegations of a real-property claim, and to show the probable validity of the claim based upon a preponderance of evidence. (CCP §§ 405.32, 405.31, 405.30; Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal. App. 4th 314, 319.) “[T]he 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. The court shall not order an undertaking to be given as a condition of expunging the notice if the court finds the claimant has not established the probable validity of the real property claim.” (CCP § 405.32.)

Plaintiff concedes that the lis pendens should be expunged due to procedural deficiencies as to the filing and service. The Court need not address the other arguments.

            Plaintiff requests leave to record another lis pendens. If Plaintiff wishes to record another lis pendens, Plaintiff may file a motion requesting such relief. (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.36.)