PATIDAR vs SINGH, et al.

25CV018154: PATIDAR vs SINGH, et al. 03/10/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens in Department 53

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 53 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with

25CV018154: PATIDAR vs SINGH, et al. 03/10/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens in Department 53

a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

*** The Court still finds in its file no proof of service demonstrating moving defendant’s service of the Notice of Disclosure issued on 11/13/2025, despite being originally directed to serve all other parties with the Notice of Disclosure “forthwith” and despite being subsequently directed on 2/5/2026 to file proof of service of same “within five (5) court days.” Moving defendant is again directed to serve the Notice of Disclosure on all other parties forthwith and to file proof of service within five (5) court days. ***

Defendant A5 Hospitality LLC’s (“A5H”) motion to expunge the lis pendens recorded on behalf of plaintiff Patidar is ruled upon as follows.

The opposition papers fail to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(3).

Moving counsel’s declaration in reply fails to comply with CRC Rule 3.1110(b)(1) and (3)-(4).

The Court notes that a number of the parties’ filings have a “case caption” which does not correspond to the “case caption” on the original complaint filed on 7/30/2025, keeping in mind that the “case caption” based on the original complaint ordinarily does not change even with the addition and/or dismissal of parties.

Factual Background

This is an action for specific performance of a contract for the purchase/sale of commercial property located in Rancho Cordova. Plaintiff filed the initial complaint on 7/30/2025 and appears to have recorded a lis pendens shortly thereafter on 8/5/2025. Plaintiff also filed a First Amended Complaint (“1AC”) on 8/29/2025, purporting to advance causes of action for breach of contract, specific performance, quiet title, declaratory relief and breach of the implied covenant of good faith. The opening paragraph of the 1AC alleges as follows:

Plaintiff seeks a judgment for quiet title, specific performance, and damages as a result of the Defendant’s breach of the Commercial Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions (hereinafter “Purchase Agreement”) executed on or about June 16, 2025, for the purchase and sale of the real property 23

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018154: PATIDAR vs SINGH, et al. 03/10/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens in Department 53

commonly known and numbered as the Rancho Cordova Inn, at 12249 Folsom Blvd, Rancho Cordova, CA 95742 with APN 069-0160-019-0000 (hereafter the “Subject Property”).

Attached to the 1AC as Exhibit 2 is the “Commercial Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions” (“CPA”) relating to the subject property, executed in June 2025.

In response to the 1AC, defendant A5H has filed both a demurrer and motion to strike, with the former set for hearing on 6/9/2026 and the latter set for hearing on 3/24/2026. (Defendant’s counsel is reminded that CRC Rule 3.1322 requires this demurrer and motion to strike to be both noticed for hearing and heard concurrently.) Additionally, plaintiff has reserved a 6/16/2026 hearing date for an anticipated motion to amend complaint.

On 8/29/2025, plaintiff filed with the Court a “Notice of Recorded Notice of Pendency of Action,” attached to which is a proof of service attesting to service by (regular) U.S. Mail and email on 8/4/2025 on Simran Sekhon as “attorney for Raviinder Singh.” The Court notes that Mr. Singh was named as a defendant in the original complaint but he was omitted from the 1AC, effectively dismissing him from this case. Still, plaintiff filed a formal request for dismissal of Mr. Singh, without prejudice, on 8/29/2025.

Moving Papers. Defendant A5H now moves to expunge plaintiff’s 8/5/2025 lis pendens on several grounds including that the 1AC does not state “a proper realproperty claim on the facts presented;” plaintiff cannot establish the “probable validity” of any “real-property claim;” and the lis pendens is “void and invalid for failure to comply with the statute’s service and proof-of-service requirements.” (Not. of Mot., p.2:3-6.) Alternatively, defendant A5H seeks an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §405.34 requiring plaintiff to post an undertaking and, if not posted by the specified date, for expungement. (Id., at p.2:6-7.) This motion also includes a request for attorney fees under §405.38.

Opposition. Plaintiff opposes, arguing that the present motion to expunge “should be denied” for five separate reasons: (1) Plaintiff has established the “probable validity” of his real property claims for breach of contract, specific performance, and quiet title; (2) any alleged service defects were cured by the 1AC naming defendant A5H as the proper defendant; (3) plaintiff was and remains ready, willing, and able to perform the underlying CPA, with any inability to close caused solely by defendant A5H’s breach; (4) plaintiff has acted with substantial justification throughout this matter, and (5) the lis pendens is necessary to preserve plaintiff’s interest in the subject property during the pendency of this litigation. (Opp., p.2:3-11.) Plaintiff also requests an award of attorney fees and costs for opposing this motion.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018154: PATIDAR vs SINGH, et al. 03/10/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens in Department 53

In support of the opposition, two declarations were filed. The first by plaintiff Patidar himself generally attests to the execution of the underlying CPA in June 2025 and plaintiff’s initial deposit into escrow; plaintiff’s attempts to secure financing; the potential lenders’ need for additional documents; and plaintiff’s inability to obtain from the seller those documents needed to secure financing for the purchase. The declaration from plaintiff’s counsel describes their efforts to secure defendant’s performance of the CPA; discussions with defendant’s counsel which indicated an intent not to proceed with the CPA; the filing of the original complaint and the 1AC; and the service of the lis pendens.

Reply. In its reply, defendant A5H maintains that a lis pendens must under Code of Civil Procedure §405.32 be expunged unless the claimant both complies with the statutory prerequisites for recordation and service and also proves by a preponderance of the evidence the “probable validity of the real property claim” but here, plaintiff has done neither. (Reply, p.1:25-p.2:3.) First, the opposition confirms that the lis pendens was not served on defendant A5H, the record owner of the subject property but rather was served only on defendant A5H’s counsel. (Id., at p.2:4-6.)

Plaintiff’s attempt to avoid the consequence of this service defect by invoking “actual notice,” later service with 1AC, and an assertion that defendant’s counsel “accepted service” for A5H is unavailing since §405.23 “do[es] not permit retroactive cure of a void notice.” (Id., at p.2:6-11.) Second, plaintiff has not established the “probable validity” of any real property claim since the CPA required plaintiff to deliver written verification of the down payment and closing costs, as well as a lender prequalification and preapproval letter, within a specified period but none of this was timely accomplished. (Id., at p.2:12-15.)

The evidence proffered with the opposition fails to establish the requisite “final financing commitments” and because plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a present ability to perform the CPA, he cannot establish the “probable validity” of his claims for specific performance or quiet title. (Id., at p.2:15-18.)

Rules Governing Lis Pendens

The rules governing lis pendens such as the one at issue in this motion are set forth in Code of Civil Procedure §405 et seq. and §405.2 provides in its entirety:

“Notice of pendency of action” or “notice” means a notice of the pendency of an action in which a real property claim is alleged. (Underline added for emphasis.)

The definition for “real property claim” is found in §405.4:

“Real property claim” means the cause or causes of action in a pleading which would, if meritorious, affect (a) title to, or the right to possession of, specific real property or (b) the use of an easement identified in the pleading, other than an

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018154: PATIDAR vs SINGH, et al. 03/10/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens in Department 53

easement obtained pursuant to statute by any regulated public utility.

Next, §405.32 requires a trial court to expunge a lis pendens if the recording party “has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim.”

Additionally, §405.3 indicates that a party recording a lis pendens be able to establish the “probable validity” of the “real property claim” on which the lis pendens is based, providing in its entirety:

“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. (Underline added for emphasis.)

In short, in order to defeat the present motion to expunge, plaintiff must not only demonstrate that he is asserting in this litigation a “real property claim” as defined in §405.4 but also produce admissible evidence sufficient to prove his real property claim is ‘probably valid.’ (See, e.g., Code Civ. Proc. §405.32; Amalgamated Bank v. Superior Court (Corinthian Homes) (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1011-1012.)

Also relevant here is Code of Civil Procedure §405.22, which expressly requires the lis pendens “to be mailed, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to all known addresses of the parties to whom the real property claim is adverse and to all owners of record of the real property affected by the real property claim as shown by the latest county assessment roll.” (Underline added for emphasis.) Highlighting the importance of these service requirements, §405.23 states that a lis pendens “shall be void and invalid as to any adverse party or owner of record unless the requirements of Section 405.22 are met for that party or owner and a proof of service in the form and content specified in Section 1013a has been recorded with the notice of pendency of action.” (Underline added for emphasis.)

Written Objections to Evidence

No written objections to evidence have been filed.

Discussion

As noted above, defendant A5H seeks to expunge plaintiff’s 8/5/2025 lis pendens on several distinct grounds. Each will now be addressed.

Service of Lis Pendens. Code of Civil Procedure §405.22 expressly requires that prior

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018154: PATIDAR vs SINGH, et al. 03/10/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens in Department 53

to recordation of the lis pendens, “the claimant [i.e., plaintiff] shall cause a copy to be mailed, by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, to all known addresses of the parties to whom the real property claim is adverse and to all owners of record of the real property affected by the real property claim as shown by the latest county assessment roll.” (Underline added for emphasis.) In this case, the opposition concedes defendant A5H is the owner of record of the subject property (see, Opp., p.7:10-11, 19-20) and as such, plaintiff was under §405.22 obliged to serve, prior to recordation, a copy of the lis pendens on A5H via registered or certified mail, return receipt requested.

However, according to the proof of service attached to the “Notice of Recorded Notice of Pendency of Action” filed on 8/29/2025, plaintiff did not prior to its recordation on 8/5/2025 serve a copy of the lis pendens on A5H as the subject property’s owner of record at all, much less by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. Instead, the attached proof of service merely attests to service of the lis pendens on Simran Sekhon as “attorney for Raviinder Singh” by (regular) U.S. Mail and email on 8/4/2025, the day before the lis pendens was actually recorded.

Since the proof of service proof of service attached to the “Notice of Recorded Notice of Pendency of Action” filed on 8/29/2025 fails to establish service in conformity with the express requirements of Code of Civil Procedure §405.22, the lis pendens recorded on 8/5/2025 under the plain language of §405.23 “shall be void and invalid as to any adverse party or owner of record” and in this case, this would include A5H as both owner of record and the sole named defendant in the 1AC. On this ground, the Court will grant the present motion to expunge the lis pendens recorded by plaintiff on 8/5/2025.

While the opposition proffers a variety of arguments about why the aforementioned service defect is “moot” (see, Opp., p.7:18-p.8:12), the Court notes that plaintiff has not offered any case law or other legal authority which purports to establish a valid exception to the express statutory language found in Code of Civil Procedure of §405.22 and/or §405.22. On this basis alone, the Court remains unpersuaded by the opposition’s claim that the service defect is “moot.”

Moreover, although plaintiff suggests that defendant A5H’s counsel’s receipt of “actual notice of the lis pendens” on behalf of both Mr. Singh and A5H cures the aforementioned service defect, this Court is not persuaded on this point. In particular, the Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held not only that a lis pendens had to be mailed to the property owner’s address “as shown on the assessor’s roll, regardless of whether that address was actually valid” but also that where “this is not done, the lis pendens is void.” (Carr v. Rosien (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 845, 848 (underline added for emphasis).) Notably, the Fourth District in Carr also rejected the plaintiff’s claim of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018154: PATIDAR vs SINGH, et al. 03/10/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens in Department 53

“substantial compliance” with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure of §405.22 because (1) “[s]ubstantial compliance contemplates that there is at least some compliance with all of the statutory requirements” and (2) the plaintiff did not actually mail the lis pendens to the owner “at any address” and there is no evidence that the owner ever received it. (Id., at 855.) Since both of these things are equally true in the present case, this Court is obliged to follow this binding appellate authority and must reject the opposition’s attempt to escape from the result dictated by §405.23 based on a dubious argument about “actual notice.” This is especially true since, contrary to plaintiff’s suggestion, that attorney Sekhon had as of 8/4/2025 “already agreed to accept service on behalf of [A5H]” (Opp., p.7:24-26), the Sekhon Declaration in reply specifically avers that this is “false” and confirms that “[a]t no time before Plaintiff recorded the notice of pendency of action did I agree to accept service of the notice on behalf of A5 Hospitality LLC.” (Sekhon Decl., ¶3.)

In light of the foregoing, the Court need not proceed further but it is worth adding here that the lis pendens which plaintiff actually recorded on 8/5/2025 is of questionable validity insofar as it fails to identify A5H the subject property’s owner of record or as a party to this lawsuit. Although the opposition claims that the subsequent filing of the 1AC on 8/29/2025 cures any defect in the lis pendens, the argument defies logic and again, plaintiff offer no legal authority. In any event, this contention runs counter to the well-established principle that since lis pendens is a legal device which can be misused for a variety of improper purposes, the availability of this interlocutory remedy “must be narrowly applied.” (See, e.g., Hilberg v. Superior Court (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 539, 542.)

Probable Validity of Valid Real Property Claim. Defendant A5H also contends 8/5/2025 lis pendens must be expunged because plaintiff cannot establish the “probable validity” of any valid “real property claim” within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure §405.3 and §405.4. (See, Not. of Mot., p.2:3-5.) However, the Court need not address this additional assertion since for the reasons explained above, the lis pendens recorded on 8/5/2025 has been found to be “void and invalid” pursuant to the express language of Code of Civil Procedure §405.23.

Request for Attorney Fees and Costs. Having prevailed on this motion to expunge, defendant A5H is under Code of Civil Procedure §405.38 entitled to an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in “making the motion [to expunge] unless the court finds that the other party acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition unjust.” While the moving papers include a request for attorney fees and costs under this statute, they do not specify the amount sought nor do the moving declarations by Mr. Singh and attorney Sekhon provide any basis on which this Court can ascertain the fees and costs incurred in connection with the present motion. Because the same is true for the reply brief and supporting

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV018154: PATIDAR vs SINGH, et al. 03/10/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens in Department 53

declaration, this Court is currently unable to award defendant A5H any attorney fees or costs.

However, defendant A5H remains free to file and serve a noticed motion to recover pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §405.38 reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with this motion.

Disposition

For the reasons explained above, defendant A5H’s motion to expunge the lis pendens recorded by plaintiff on 8/5/2025 is GRANTED but defendant A5H’s request for an award of reasonable attorney fees and costs is DENIED, albeit without prejudice to filing and serving a noticed motion seeking such relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §405.38.

Plaintiff is reminded that under Code of Civil Procedure §405.36, he may not record another lis pendens with respect to the subject property at 12249 Folsom Boulevard in Rancho Cordova without first obtaining leave of court which, if sought, must be pursued by noticed motion

The Court declines to sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers because it is neither complete nor consistent with the foregoing ruling. Pursuant to CRC Rule 3.1312, defendant A5H to promptly prepare a revised proposed order consistent with the foregoing ruling.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)