ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD INC. vs SANDOVAL

On March 11, 2026, the Court scheduled an order to show cause (“OSC”) hearing regarding striking the second amended complaint and the answer to the cross-complaint.

On April 20, 2026, Cross-complainants filed a motion to deem facts admitted.

On April 22, 2026, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendants failed to appear at the OSC hearing, and the court struck the second amended complaint as well as the answer to the cross-complaint.

On May 27, 2026, Cross-Complainants filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and a Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens. 22CV012271: ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD INC. vs SANDOVAL 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Assembly of God Church of the Good Shepherd Inc. (Cross-Complainant) + CRS# A-12271-001 in Department 518

On June 8, 2026, Cross-complainants filed a motion for an order of non-effect of the mistaken, improper an illegal transfer of the church’s real property.

The court continued the previous hearing regarding these motions to allow Cross-complainants to perfect service.

On June 23, 2026, Cross-complainants filed the requisite proof of service.

None of these motions have been opposed. Default was entered as to Edna Argueta on May 29, 2026.

Cross-Defendants did not oppose any of the motions. Accordingly, we deem them to have abandoned any issues with these motions. (See Herzberg v. Cnty. of Plumas (2005) 133 Cal. App. 4th 1, 20 (2005) [failure to oppose an issue raised in a demurrer is deemed abandonment of the issue]; Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal. App. 4th 1403, 1410 [failure to file an opposition to a motion creates an inference that the motion is meritorious].)

Motion to Deem RFAs Admitted

Further, Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Edna Argueta and Assembly of God Church of the Good Shepherd, Inc. (collectively “Argueta” or “Plaintiffs”) have not responded whatsoever to Sandoval’s written discovery served in this action, which includes Request for Production of Documents (“RFPD”), Request For Admissions (“RFA”), Special Interrogatories (“SROG”), and Form Interrogatories ("FROG”) (collectively “Discovery Requests” or “Discovery”), which were properly served in this action via Overnight Mail on January 19, 2026, and to which no response has ever been produced. (Dooley Decl. ¶¶ 3 – 5).

Thus, the Court DEEMS the Requests for Admissions admitted. Further, Cross-defendants are ORDERED to pay sanctions in the amount of $2,482.50 as supported by Counsel’s declaration. (See Dooley Decl. ¶¶ 6 – 7.)

Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens

Parties to an action asserting “a real property claim may record a notice of pendency of action in which that real property claim is alleged.” (Park 100 Investment Group II, LLC v. Ryan (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 795, 808 (“Park”); Code Civ. Proc., § 405.20.) Parties and nonparties “with an interest in the real property affected thereby, may apply to the court in which the action is pending to expunge the notice.”(Park, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 808; Code Civ. Proc., § 405.30.) Courts “shall order the notice expunged if the court finds that the pleading on which the notice is based does not contain a real property claim.” (CCP § 405.31.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV012271: ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD INC. vs SANDOVAL 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Assembly of God Church of the Good Shepherd Inc. (Cross-Complainant) + CRS# A-12271-001 in Department 518

If a real property claim has been pled and as pled lacks evidentiary merit, the lis pendens shall be expunged.(Park, supra, 180 Cal.App.4th at p. 808.) CCP § 405.32 provides, “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.” (Ibid.; CCP § 405.32.)

In addition, the party recording the lis pendens (and opposing the motion to expunge) must demonstrate that the litigation was commenced in good faith, for the proper purpose of protecting Plaintiff’s property interests in the subject properties, and that his real property claims have probable validity. (Hunting World, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 67, 70.)

Unlike other motions, it is the nonmoving party who must demonstrate the “probablevalidity”of their real property claims in opposing a motion to expunge lis pendens. (Kirkeby v. Superior Court(2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 647.)Therefore, a court must grant the motion unless the party opposing the motion to expunge demonstrates “by apreponderance of the evidence” the probable validityof their real property claims. (Ibid.; CCP § 405.32)Therefore, while the first prong of the lis pendens analysis engages a demurrer-like analysis, the second prong regarding whether the opposing party has established by a preponderance of the evidence the “probable validity” of its claims is evidentiary and requires that the non-moving (opposing) party show by a preponderance of the evidence that they would prevail at trial. (Ibid.)

As explained above, Plaintiffs/Cross-Defendants abandoned this action and for that reason, a motion to expunge lis pendens is proper and GRANTED.

Further, the motion for an order of non-effect of the mistaken, improper and illegal transfer of the church’s real property is well-taken and GRANTED for the same reasons.

Finally, for all the above reasons, the Court GRANTS the County of Alameda’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

By or before August 31, 2026, Cross-complainants are ORDERED to submit a proposed judgment reflecting the dismissal of this action. (Blauser v. Dubin (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 918.)

Note: if this Motion is contested by any party, the hearing will be held on August 13, 2026, at 2:30pm in Dept. 518.

---

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

22CV012271: ASSEMBLY OF GOD CHURCH OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD INC. vs SANDOVAL 08/06/2026 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Assembly of God Church of the Good Shepherd Inc. (Cross-Complainant) + CRS# A-12271-001 in Department 518 PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.

For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.

Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room

Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984

Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984

One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)

---

Dial by your location • +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)