Case Name: Linda Buckel et al vs Ravi Dronamraju et al

Case No.: 2015-1-CV-288148

On October 11, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed her complaint. Defendants also dismissed their cross-complaint. Despite the dismissal of her complaint, Plaintiff has refused to withdraw her lis pendens, and accordingly, Defendants have filed a motion to expunge.

This hearing has been continued several times, for service issues. The Court has now concluded that the motion was properly served, and is unopposed. As noted below, the motion has merit and is GRANTED.

A lis pendens is properly expunged without a bond if the court finds either: that Plaintiffs’ complaint does not contain a “real property claim” (i.e., one affecting title or possession of specific real property or use of an easement, etc.; CCP § 405.4; CCP § 405.31); or, the claimant “has not established by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim.” (CCP § 405.32; BGJ Associates LLC v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 952, 972.)

The burden of proof on is on the lis pendens claimant: unlike most other motions, the burden of proof is on the party opposing the motion to expunge. The lis pendens claimants (Plaintiffs) bear the burden of establishing the existence of a “real property claim” and that it is “probably valid.” (CCP § 405.32.)

The allegations of the complaint determine whether a “real property claim” is involved; no independent evidence is required. (Urez Corp. v. Sup.Ct. (Keefer) (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1141, 1149.) A “real property claim” is any cause of action which, if meritorious, would affect the title to, or the right to possession of, specific real property.

In this instance, as the Complaint has been dismissed, there is no real property claim asserted in this case. As a result, the Court does not need to consider if any real property claim is valid.

Expungement of an improper lis pendens is mandatory, not discretionary. Thus, if the court finds the underlying claim is not a “real property claim” or that its “probable validity” has not been established “by a preponderance of the evidence,” it must order the lis pendens expunged. (CCP §§ 405.31, 405.32.) Here, there is no real property claim left in any complaint.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Lis Pendens described above be expunged. Defendants shall immediately submit a separate order in paper form appropriate for recording that only includes the order to expunge Lis Pendens without the legal analysis.

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 405.35, this Order shall not become effective and shall not be recorded until 20 days after service of written notice of this Order signed by the Court, or upon the final adjudication of any petition for writ of mandate timely filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 405.39.

Attorney fees are mandatory to a successful party on a motion to expunge lis pendens, unless the other party acted with substantial justification. The Court finds no legitimate rationale for refusing to withdraw a lis pendens after the Plaintiff has dismissed her complaint.

Defendants seek an award of attorney fees and costs of $3,310.00 to pursue the ex parte application to set the hearing date and to prepare the motion to expunge. The Court finds that the hourly rate charged was within the market rate, and the hours spent were reasonably and necessarily incurred. Accordingly, the Court will award to Defendants the sum of $3,310.00 in fees and costs.

The Court will prepare the order.