Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 21CHCV00940, Date: 2022-07-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21CHCV00940    Hearing Date: July 29, 2022    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 7/29/22

Case #21CHCV00940

 MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS

 Motion filed on 7/12/22.

 MOVING PARTY: Defendant Mary Annette Pickens

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Lawrence A. Garoutte

 
RELIEF REQUESTED: An order expunging the unfiled Notice of Pending Action (Lis Pendens) which was served on or about 12/11/21 and recorded by Plaintiff on 12/22/21 regarding real property commonly known as 22232 Wildwood Place, Chatsworth, CA 91311.

 RULING:

 The motion is continued to September 14, 2022, at 8:30 a.m. to allow for the filing and service of an opposition.  

 On 7/12/22, Defendant Mary Annette Pickens (Defendant) filed an Ex Parte Application Re Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens (to Shorten Time).  On 7/13/22, the Court granted the application, in part, by advancing the hearing on Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens scheduled for 11/17/22 to 7/13/22 and continuing the hearing to 7/29/22.  (See 7/13/22 Minute Order).  The Court further ordered any opposition was due to be filed and served by 7/20/22 and any reply was due to be filed and served by 7/26/22.  Id.  Finally, the Court ordered Defendant to give notice.  Id.

 While Defendant filed and served, by first class mail, a notice of non-opposition to the motion on 7/21/22, there is no evidence that Defendant provided Plaintiff with notice of the Court’s 7/13/22 ruling on the ex parte application as ordered by the Court.  Additionally, it is not clear that the underlying motion was properly served on Plaintiff, who is now self-represented.  The proof of service attached to the Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens indicates that the motion was served on Plaintiff by email on 7/12/22 indicating the original 11/17/22 hearing date.  While an email address (which is the same as the email address in the proof of service) for Plaintiff appears in eCourt, it is not clear that Plaintiff, who is self-represented, may properly be served via electronic service.  See CCP 1010.6(a)(2)(A)(ii), (d)(4).  Even if such service is proper, as noted above, there is no evidence that Defendant ever provided Plaintiff with notice of the Court’s 7/13/22 ruling which set the matter for hearing on 7/29/22. 

There is no opposition/response to the motion to cure the above-mentioned defects in notice. 

 Additionally, the parties are reminded to review the 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil.  When e-filing documents, parties must comply with the “TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS” which are set forth at page 4, line 4 through page 5, line 12 of the Court’s 5/3/19 First Amended General Order Re Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil.  See also CRC 3.1110(f)(4).  Defendant has failed to bookmark the declaration, exhibits and proof of service attached to the motion.  Failure to comply with these requirements in the future may result in  matters being placed off calendar, matters being continued so documents can be resubmitted in compliance with these requirements, documents not being considered and/or the imposition of sanctions.