Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV06042, Date: 2024-05-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV06042    Hearing Date: May 3, 2024    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     May 6, 2024               TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Junkers2Jewels LLC, et al. v. La-Doris McClaney, Trustee of the La-Doris McCLaney Family Trust, et al.

CASE NO.:                 24STCV06042           

MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant La-Doris McClaney, Trustee of the La-Doris McClaney Family Trust

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Junkers2Jewels, LLC and Matthew Pelanne.

CASE HISTORY:

·         03/11/24: Complaint filed.

·         03/25/24: Cross-Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is an action for breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants breached a purchase agreement for a parcel of real property by unilaterally cancelling escrow.

Defendant La-Doris McClaney, Trustee of the La-Doris McClaney Family Trust, moves to expunge a notice of lis pendens recorded against the subject property.

TENTATIVE RULING:

            Defendant’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens is DENIED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant La-Doris McClaney, Trustee of the La-Doris McClaney Family Trust, moves to expunge a notice of lis pendens recorded against the subject property.

//

//

Missing Proof of Service

            As an initial matter, no proof of service accompanied Defendant’s moving papers. However, Plaintiffs substantively responded to the motion and do not object to the motion as improperly served. The Court will therefore overlook this deficiency and address the motion on the merits.

Legal Standard for Expungement of Lis Pendens

A lis pendens is a recorded document that gives constructive notice that an action affecting title or right to possession of real property has been filed and may be filed by any party that asserts a real property claim to that real property. (Kirkeby v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 647.) A person with an interest in the affected real property can petition the court to expunge the lis pendens. (Code Civ. Proc. § 405.30.) The court must order the lis pendens expunged if it finds that (a) there is no real property claim, (b) the claimant did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim, or (c) adequate relief can be secured by giving an undertaking. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 405.31- 405.33.) A real property claim is a cause of action that, if successful, would affect title to or the right of possession of specific real property or the use of an easement identified in a pleading.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 405.4.) 

On a motion to expunge for lack of probable validity under section 405.32, the burden is on the claimant to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, the probable validity of the claim. (Code Civ. Proc. § 405.30.) In ruling on the motion, “evidence or declarations may be filed with the motion,” and the Court “may permit evidence to be received in the form of oral testimony, and may make any orders it deems just to provide for discovery by any party affected by a motion to expunge the notice.” (Id.) “‘Probable validity,’ with respect to a real property claim, means that it is more likely than not that the claimant will obtain a judgment against the defendant on the claim.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 405.3.)

Analysis

            Defendant moves to expunge a notice of lis pendens recorded against the subject property on the grounds that Plaintiffs cannot establish the probable validity of a real property claim. The Complaint alleges a single cause of action for breach of contract with respect to the Commercial Purchase Agreement for the property located at 8543 Cashio Street, Los Angeles, CA 90035. (Complaint ¶¶ 7g; BC-1 – BC-2.) The Complaint seeks specific performance of the contract, or alternatively, money damages for lost profits. (Id. ¶¶ BC-4; BC-6.)

            To prevail on a cause of action for breach of contract, a plaintiff must establish (1) the contract, (2) the plaintiff’s performance of the contract or excuse for nonperformance, (3) Defendant’s breach, and finally (4) the resulting damage. (See, e.g., Otworth v. Southern Pac. Transportation Co. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 452, 458.) To obtain the remedy of specific performance, the plaintiff must also establish the inadequacy of the remedy at law. (Darbun Enterprises, Inc. v. San Fernando Hospital (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 399, 409 fn. 5.) Real property is presumptively unique such that the loss of possession cannot be adequately relieved by monetary damages. (Civ. Code § 3387.)

            Defendant contends that Plaintiffs cannot establish the probable validity of their claim because (1) Plaintiffs cannot show that they performed their obligations under the contract and (2) Plaintiffs cannot show that Defendant breached any terms of the contract. The Complaint alleges that Defendant refused to provide tenant Subordination, Non-Disturbance, and Attornment (SNDA) agreements to Plaintiffs so that they could secure the necessary funding from Plaintiffs’ lender to purchase the property. (Complaint ¶ BC-1; Exhs. 1-2.) Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ demands for Defendant to sign these agreements constitute an admission that Plaintiffs did not have the funds to complete the sale, and, therefore, could not perform their obligations under the agreement. Defendant freely concedes that she did not provide the SNDAs and argues that she was not obligated to do so under the express terms of the contract and was within her rights to withdraw from the agreement based on Plaintiffs’ apparent inability to fund escrow. (See Declaration of La-Doris McClaney ISO Mot. ¶¶ 10-11.)

            Defendant, in essence, admits she refused to assist Plaintiffs in completing a necessary step to ensure that Plaintiffs could comply with their obligations under the contract, and, thereafter, withdrew from the contract on the basis of Plaintiffs’ putative nonperformance. “There is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in every contract that neither party will do anything which will injure the right of the other to receive the benefits of the agreement.” (Comunale v. Traders & General Ins. Co. (1958) 50 Cal.2d 654, 658.) Defendant’s own evidence and admissions in her filings demonstrate, on their face, a breach of this obligation. Defendant attempts to brush off this obligation by arguing that obtaining executed SNDAs from the tenants at the properties is a substantive duty that cannot be imposed as part of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 349-350.) The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s conclusory assertions. Nor is the Court moved by the supplemental assertion, unsupported by evidence or sworn testimony, that Defendant acted reasonably in refusing to obtain executed SNDAs. The exhibits attached to the Complaint and Defendant’s own evidence and admissions demonstrate the probable validity of Plaintiffs’ claims by conceding the central allegations of the Complaint.

Undertaking

            Defendant requests that the Court require Plaintiffs to post an undertaking in the amount of $1.5 million to maintain the lis pendens. The Court may require an undertaking to be posted to maintain a notice of lis pendens “upon motion by any person with an interest in the property.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 405.34.) Here, however, no such request was made in Defendant’s notice of motion. The Court therefore declines to consider the request for an undertaking at this juncture.

//

CONCLUSION:

            Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens is DENIED.

            Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  May 6, 2024               ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.