Motion to expunge lis pendens; Request for sanctions
On September 18, 2025, United filed this action. United’s payment of the Disputed Funds to this court was completed on January 7, 2026. On October 21, 2025, United filed an Affidavit of Due Diligence of the summons and complaint in this action on Defendant Hunter. In the affidavit, process server Barbara Alves states that on October 11, 2025, at 6:45 p.m., at 1771 Elizabeth Avenue, Apt. I, in Corning, California, an individual meeting Defendant Hunter’s description acknowledged that she was the individual to be served.
However, that individual closed the door when Ms. Alves announced service so Ms. Alves left the documents on the doorstep. As long as servers identify themselves and tell reluctant defendants that they are being served with process and leave the papers as close as possible to the defendants, service is valid notwithstanding the defendant's refusal to accept. (Trujillo v. Trujillo (1945) 71 Cal. App. 2d 257, 260.) Defendant Max G. Arnold filed an answer to United’s complaint on February 26, 2026.
The Arnold Defendants and Defendant Hunter were mailed and emailed a copy of this motion. Thus, service of summons and complaint, and of this motion on the defendants is complete. II. Interpleader Complaint – CCP section 386 Code of Civil Procedure section 386 allows United to interplead the Disputed Funds and be discharged from this action. Subsection (a) provides: “[W]enever conflicting claims are or may be made upon a person for or relating to personal property, or the performance of an obligation, or any portion thereof, such person may bring an action against the conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims.
The order of substitution may be made and the action of interpleader may be maintained, and the applicant or interpleading party be discharged from liability to all or any of the conflicting claimants, although their titles or claims have not a common origin, or are not identical but are adverse to and independent of one another.” (CCP § 386(a).) Subsection (f) of section 386 allows this court to enter “its order restraining all parties to the action from instituting or further prosecuting any other proceeding in any court in this state affecting the rights and obligations as between the parties to the interpleader until further order of the court.” (CCP section 386(f).)
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?”
III.
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, United’s motion is GRANTED. The court will sign the proposed order.
6. 25CV08885, Vargas Flaherty v. Kerston
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. DANA B. SIMONDS)
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
18. PLEASE USE DEPT. 18’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).
Defendant Peter Kerston (“Defendant”) moves for an order expunging the Notice of Pendency of Action recorded by Plaintiffs Casilda Flaherty and Christopher Flaherty (“Plaintiffs”). Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $5,000. I. Complaint This action was filed on December 31, 2025. A first amended complaint was filed on February 26, 2026. Plaintiffs allege they leased property located at 1412 Quail Court, Santa Rosa, California 95404 (“Subject Property”). Plaintiffs allege defendants Peter Kerston and Caroline 5
Kerston lived in the Subject Property for seven years prior to Plaintiffs’ lease and were therefore aware of the substandard conditions of the property, including an active rodent infestation, mold contamination, broken and inoperable doors, non-functioning locks and deadbolts, and a cockroach infestation. II. Lis Pendens A lis pendens may be ordered expunged if the complaint does not contain a “real property claim” (CCP § 405.31) or plaintiff cannot establish its “probable validity” by a “preponderance of the evidence.” (CCP § 405.32).
Unlike most other motions, the burden of proof is on the party opposing the motion to expunge. The lis pendens claimant (Plaintiffs) bears the burden of establishing the existence of a “real property claim” and that it is “probably valid.” (CCP § 405.32.) III. Notice of Motion and Lack of Opposition Defendant has filed proof of service showing service of the motion on Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not filed opposition. Therefore, they have not shown that the real property claim against Defendant is probably valid.
As such, this motion must be granted. IV. Sanctions Defendant requests attorney’s fees in the amount of $5,000 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 405.38. That section provides: “The court shall direct that the party prevailing on any motion under this chapter be awarded the reasonable attorney's fees and costs of making or opposing the motion unless the court finds that the other party acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances make the imposition of attorney's fees and costs unjust.” (CCP section 405.38.)
Here, Defendant is self-represented and did not incur any attorney fees. Defendant’s declaration does not describe any costs incurred besides his time spent on this motion, which is not compensable. In addition, Defendant was granted a fee waiver for court costs and fees and thus did not incur the expense of a filing fee for this motion. As no compensable expenses have been shown to have been incurred on this motion, sanctions are denied. V.
Conclusion
Defendant’s motion to expunge the lis pendens is GRANTED. Sanctions are DENIED. Defendant is directed to submit a written order to the court consistent with this ruling.
7. 26CV00070, Capri Mobile Villa LLC v. City of Petaluma
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. OSCAR A. PARDO)
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
19. PLEASE USE DEPT. 19’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).
This matter is on calendar for the demurrer of Defendant City of Petaluma (“City”) to the complaint filed by Plaintiff Capri Mobile Villa, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed on January 2, 2026. On July 31, 2026, the parties filed a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Continue Hearing on Defendant’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Stipulation indicates that Plaintiff’s counsel is unavailable for the instant hearing date. Therefore, the parties have agreed to continue the hearing. The parties request dates in September or in October. Unfortunately, this department’s law and motion calendar is currently scheduling into March of 2026. Accordingly, the motion is CONTINUED to March 3, 2027, at 3:00p.m., in Department 16.
6