Motion to expunge lis pendens
not palpable injury to Defendant or to the judicial process. Furthermore, Defendant’s lengthy delay in moving for disqualification supports a reasonable finding that this motion was made for tactical purposes.
Plaintiff to give notice.
9 Mendoza vs. TENTATIVE RULING: Sanchez Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens
Defendant Nalleli Morales-Ueligitone esa Nalleli Yesenia Sanchez moves to expunge the Notice of Pendency of Action relating to Assessor’s Parcel Number 014-032-02 and recorded in the Official Records of Orange County as Document Number 2023000232674. For the following reasons, the unopposed motion is GRANTED.
Standard on Motions to Expunge Lis Pendens
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 405.30, “[a]t any time after notice of pendency of action has been recorded, any party, or any nonparty with an interest in the real property affected thereby, may apply to the court in which the action is pending to expunge the notice.” A court “shall” grant a motion to expunge if: (1) the pleading upon which the lis pendens is based does not contain a real property claim (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.31); or (2) the claimant has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.32). “Probable validity” 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.)
After entry of judgment, a lis pendens may remain on record only if the claimant can meet the statutory burden to justify its continued maintenance. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 405.30, 405.32; see also Knapp Development & Design v. Pal-Mal Props., Ltd. (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 786, 789
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The burden of proof rests with the party responsible for filing the lis pendens. (Amalgamated Bank v. Superior Court (2007) 149
Cal.App.4th 1003, 1007; Shah v. McMahon (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 526, 529.)
Notice of Pendency of Action
As the party responsible for filing the lis pendens, Plaintiff Miguel Mendoza bears the burden of proof here. Plaintiff chose not to oppose the motion and, thus, fails to meet his burden. Furthermore, the court notes that the court record—including the ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, entry of judgment, and absence of any notice of appeal—shows no probable validity justifying the continued maintenance of the lis pendens.
Moving party to give notice.
10 South Coast TENTATIVE RULING: Medical Center for New For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Melanie Copeland’s motion Medicine, Inc. to set aside entry of default is GRANTED. vs. Gama
The court may, upon any terms as may be just, relieve a party or his or her legal representative from a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.” (Civ. Proc. Code § 473(b).) “Application for this relief shall be accompanied by a copy of the answer or other pleading proposed to be filed therein, otherwise the application shall not be granted, and shall be made within a reasonable time, in no case exceeding six months, after the judgment, dismissal, order, or proceeding was taken.” (Id.) “Notwithstanding any other requirements of this section, the court shall, whenever an application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment, is in proper form, and is accompanied by an attorney’s sworn affidavit attesting to his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect, vacate any (1) resulting default entered by the clerk . . . or (2) resulting default judgment or dismissal entered . . . .” (Id.)
The law favors a trial on the merits, and doubts in applying Code of Civil Procedure section 473 are resolved in favor of the party seeking relief from default. (Iott v. Franklin (1988) 206 Cal. App. 3d 521, 526.) If a party moves promptly for default relief, or if the granting of the relief from default will not prejudice the opposing party (other than losing the advantage of the default), only slight evidence will justify an order granting such relief. (Id; Fasuyi v. Permatex, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 681, 695.)