MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS
superior knowledge.’” (Thomas v. Regents of the University of California (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 587, 611.) “A complaint will be upheld ‘“so long as the pleading gives notice of the issues sufficient to enable preparation of a defense.”’” (Ibid.)
The petition is sufficient to enable Respondent to prepare a defense, particularly because any doubt about what Ulisses is alleged to have done individually can be clarified through discovery.
The demurrer is OVERRULED.
Petitioners are directed to give notice.
3 Fung – Trust; 30-2026-01548357 MOTION TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS
Respondent Michelle Fung’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens (ROA 51) is CONTINUED for supplemental briefing and further hearing as set forth below.
Pursuant to CCP §§ 405.22, 405.23, 405.30, 405.31, 405.34, and 405.38, Respondent Michell Fung (Respondent) seeks an order expunging a lis pendens placed on property commonly known as 2602 W. Castor Street, Santa Ana, CA 92704 (Property) on the grounds Petitioners: (1) do not assert a real property claim against the Property and (2) cannot establish the probable validity of their claim.
A lis pendens must be expunged if: (1) the pleading on which the lis pendens is based does not contain a real property claim; or (2) the claimant cannot establish the probable validity of the real property claim(s) by a preponderance of the evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc., §§ 405.31 and 405.32.) The party opposing a motion to expunge has the burden of showing both the existence of a real property claim and the probable validity of that claim. (Kirkeby v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 647; Code of Civ. Proc., § 405.30.)
Real property claim. A “real property claim” is one which, if meritorious, would affect title to, or the right to possession of, specific real property; or the use of an easement identified in the pleading. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 405.4.) The allegations of the petition determine whether a “real property claim” is involved; no independent evidence is required. (
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?”
Because the petition seeks, in part, to remove the trustee (ROA 2 at 3:25-4:20) and the trustee holds title to a trust’s real property, the petition asserts a real property claim. “The trustee of a trust holds title to real property. Unlike a corporation, a trust is not a legal entity. Rather, a trust is a fiduciary relationship with respect to property. When property is held in trust, there is always a divided ownership of property, generally with the trustee holding legal title and the beneficiary holding equitable title. Trusts do not own property; trustees do.” (Newell v. Superior Court (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 728, 736–737.) If Petitioners are successful on their claim, a new trustee would be designated and that new trustee would then hold title to the Property in his or her name as successor trustee. (Id. at p. 737.)
Probable validity of the claim. To overcome the motion to expunge, Petitioners must establish “it is more likely than not [she] will obtain a judgment” on her real property claim. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 405.3.) Petitioner’s showing must be by a preponderance of the evidence. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 405.32.)
The briefs filed by both parties focus almost entirely on the issue of whether there was a real property claim. Neither party presents evidence or argument regarding the probable validity of Petitioners’ claims. Accordingly, the court requests supplemental briefing on that issue.
Petitioners may file and serve supplemental briefing on the issue of probable validity no later than June 10, 2026. Respondent may file and serve responsive supplemental briefing on the issue probable validity no later than June 24, 2026. Neither party’s briefing may exceed seven pages, not including declarations and exhibits.
The hearing on the motion to expunge is CONTINUED to July 1, 2026 at 9:00 AM in Department CM08.
The court directs the clerk to give notice.
4 Nguyen – Elder Abuse; MOTION FOR JUDGMENT 30-2025-01501681
5 Thompson – Probate; MOTION FOR COURT ORDER TO ACCESS DECEDENT’S 30-2024-01405460 DIGITAL ASSETS AND DEVICE