Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 24PSCV03123, Date: 2025-05-08 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 40 - MICHAEL J. SHULTZ  - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. 




Case Number: 24PSCV03123    Hearing Date: May 8, 2025    Dept: 40

23STCV06642 Joseph Salazar v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al.

Thursday, May 8, 2025

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS AND FOR FEES AND COSTS FILED BY DEFENDANT, JAMIE L. YIANG, AS TRUSTEE OF KINGLAKE TRUST

 

I.       BACKGROUND

 

The complaint, filed on September 19, 2024, alleges that Defendants unlawfully foreclosed upon and sold real property owned by Plaintiff located in Diamond Bar, California. Plaintiff alleges 10 causes of action for:

  1. Wrongful foreclosure
  2. Violation of Homeowner Bill of Rights
  3. Quiet title
  4. Constructive fraud
  5. Misrepresentation
  6. Financial Elder Abuse
  7. Conversion
  8. Breach of fiduciary duty
  9. Intentional infliction of emotional distress
  10. Declaratory relief

 

Defendant, Jamie L. Yiang, Trustee of Kinglake Trust (“Defendant”), moves to strike the notice of pendency of action recorded by Plaintiff, who does not have standing to file it since summary judgment was entered in Defendant’s favor in the unlawful detainer action bearing Case No. 24WCUD00650 (“UD action”). Defendant obtained possession of the premises on August 20, 2024. As Plaintiff no longer has possessory interest, he cannot file a lis pendens, which has detrimentally and substantially interfered with the Defendants’ ability to sell the real property.

      Defendant timely served the motion on Plaintiff, who did not file an opposition.

II.     LEGAL STANDARDS

      Upon commencement of a quiet title action, a notice of pendency of action is required to be recorded. (Code Civ. Proc., § 761.010.) A lis pendens is a recorded instrument that gives constructive notice of a pending lawsuit affecting title to or possession of real property. (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.4.) The practical effect of the document is to prevent the real property’s transfer until the litigation is resolved or the lis pendens is expunged or released.  (J&A Mash & Barrel, LLC v. Superior Court of Fresno County (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 1, 15.)

      The court shall  expunge the lis pendens if the complaint does not contain a real property claim or the claimant has not established by a preponderance of evidence the probable validity of the real property claim.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§  405.31, 405.32.) A “real property claim” is one affecting title to or the right to possession of specific real property. (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.4.) A lis pendens is required to be filed in quiet title actions. (Code Civ. Proc., § 761.010 (b).)

      To determine whether the complaint states a real property claim, the court considers the allegations of the complaint only; no independent evidence is required. (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.”]. (Id.)

      The real property claimant has the burden of establishing the probable validity of the real property claim, defined as "more likely than not that the claimant will obtain a judgment against the defendant on the claim" by a preponderance of evidence.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.3; Code Civ. Proc., § 405.32.) Plaintiff can meet his burden of establishing that the complaint has merit “by competent material allegations in a verified complaint, by affidavit, or by other proof allowed by the trial court.” (McKnight v. Superior Court (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 291, 299.)

III.    DISCUSSION

      The court grants Defendant’s request for judicial notice of the lis pendens recorded on October 17, 2024. The court denies Defendant’s request for judicial notice of the records filed in the UD action, as the UD action is not relevant to the court’s disposition of this motion.

      Defendant does not cite any authority that Plaintiff lacks standing to file a lis pendens based on Plaintiff’s lack of possession of the real property. Rather, as noted previously, a lis pendens can be recorded so long as Plaintiff alleges a real property claim. The complaint alleges a claim for quiet title, which is a real property claim.  

      Plaintiff, however, has not filed an opposition.  Therefore Plaintiff has not met the burden of proving a probable validity of prevailing on the merits by a preponderance of evidence. (Park 100 Investment Group II, LLC v. Ryan (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 795, 808 ["the 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."].)

      Defendant is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party on this motion. Plaintiff, as the real property claimant, has not shown that Plaintiff acted with substantial justification, or other circumstances make imposition of the award unjust. (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.38.) Accordingly, the court awards attorney’s fees and costs of $2,060 (4 hours x $500 per hour + $60.)

IV.   CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED. The court expunges the notice of pendency of action recorded in the Recorder’s Office on October 17, 2024, bearing document number 20240708106. (RJN, Ex. E.) Plaintiff is ordered to pay $2,060 in fees and costs to Defendant, Jamie L. Yiang, as Trustee of Kinglake Trust, within 30 days.





Website by Triangulus