Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC559815    Hearing Date: April 5, 2021    Dept: 19

RULING

Defendant Verzfco LLC’s Unopposed Motion to Expunge Recorded Notice of Pendency of Action (Lis Pendens) is GRANTED.  The lis pendens recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder on October 14, 2014 as Instrument No. 20141054709 is hereby ordered expunged. 

Defendant Verzfco LLC to submit a proposed order within 5 court days and give notice.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case involves a claim for quiet title to real property. On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff Ronald Moore filed a Complaint to Quiet Title against Defendants Rosa Lars, Benny Newton, Dane Moore, Vincent Alva, Nancy Cardenas, T.B. Sanders Verzfco LLC, Old Republic Title Company, Pacific Escrow Inc., Blake Uradomo, Century 21 Allstars Inc., Maxres Inc., Joseph Garcia Villaescusa, Sandra Villaescusa, and Does 1-12. The Complaint seeks to quiet title to the real property at 7933 S. Morton Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90001 (the “Subject Property”).

On November 12, 2015, Plaintiff Ronald Moore, and Plaintiffs Benny Newton, and Dane Moore (who were formerly named as Defendants in the Complaint) filed their First Amended Complaint against Defendants Rosa Lars, T.B. Sanders, Verzfco LLC, Old Republic Title Company, Pacific Escrow Inc., Blake Uradomo, Century 21 Allstars Inc., Maxres Inc., Joseph Garcia Villaescusa, Sandra Villaescusa, and all persons unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien or interest to the Subject Property. The FAC also arises in quiet title and alleges the following causes of action:

1. Quiet Title (All Plaintiffs against Defendants Lars and Verzfco)

2. Conversion (Rents) (All Plaintiffs against Defendant Verzfco)

3. Money Had & Received (All Plaintiffs against Defendant Verzfco)

4. Conversion (Personal Property) (Plaintiff Ronald Moore against Defendant Verzfco)

5. Conspiracy – Forgery (All Plaintiffs against Defendants T.B. Sanders, Verzfco LLC, Doe 13 Defendant Surety, Old Republic Title Company, Pacific Escrow Inc., Blake Uradomo, Century 21 Allstars Inc., Maxres Inc., Joseph Garcia Villaescusa, Sandra Villaescusa)

6. Slander of Title (All Plaintiffs against Defendants T.B. Sanders, Verzfco LLC, Doe 13 Defendant Surety, Old Republic Title Company, Pacific Escrow Inc., Blake Uradomo, Century 21 Allstars Inc., Maxres Inc., Joseph Garcia Villaescusa, Sandra Villaescusa)

7. Partition (All Plaintiffs against Defendant Verzfco).

On January 24, 2020, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Bring to Trial in Five Years, filed by Defendants Old Republic Title Company, Blake Uradomo, and Verzfco LLC, the only parties that were remaining in the action. The Court then entered  a judgment of dismissal, with prejudice, of Plaintiff’s entire action.

On September 16, 2020, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Verzfco LLC (“Verzfco”) filed the instant Motion to Expunge Recorded Notice of Pendency of Action (Lis Pendens) (the “Motion”).

GROUNDS FOR MOTION

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure sections 405.32 and 405.3, Defendant Verzfco moves to expunge the lis pendens recorded by Plaintiffs’ counsel on October 6, 2014, Instrument No. 20141054709, on the grounds that the case has been dismissed, the real property claim in the FAC lacks “probable validity,” and Plaintiffs’ appeal is unlikely to be successful.

DISCUSSION

Defendant Verzfco moves to expunge the lis pendens pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 405.32 on the grounds that the real property claim contained in Plaintiffs’ FAC lacks probably validity because the case was dismissed, with prejudice, given that the time to bring the action has passed and the judgment of dismissal was appropriate. (Motion at pp. 2-3 (citing Code Civ. Proc., § 405.32).)

“‘A lis pendens is a recorded document giving constructive notice that an action has been filed affecting title to or right to possession of the real property described in the notice.’” (Kirkeby v. Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 647 (quoting Urez Corp. v. Superior Court (1987) 190 Cal.App.3d 1141, 1144).) A lis pendens may be filed by any party that asserts a real property claim to that real property. (Id.) A real property claim is a cause of action that, if successful, would affect title to or the right of possession of specific real property or the use of an easement identified in a pleading. (Code Civ. Proc. § 405.4.)  For example, quiet title and a suit to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of real property are actions that affect title or possession of real property. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 761.010; Kirkeby, supra, 33 Cal.4th at 649.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 405.30 provides, in relevant part, that:

At 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. […] Evidence or declarations may be filed with the motion to expunge the notice. The court may permit evidence to be received in the form of oral testimony, and may make any orders it deems just to provide for discovery by any party affected by a motion to expunge the notice. The claimant shall have the burden of proof under Sections 405.31 and 405.32.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 405.30.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 405.32 provides that:

…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. The court shall not order an undertaking to be given as a condition of expunging the notice if the court finds the claimant has not established the probable validity of the real property claim.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 405.32.)

“‘Probable validity,’ with respect to a real property claim, 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.)

“[O]n a motion to expunge a lis pendens after judgment against the claimant and while an appeal is pending, the trial court must grant the motion unless it finds it more likely than not that the appellate court will reverse the judgment.” (Amalgamated Bank v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1015.)

Here, Plaintiffs’ real property claims were dismissed with prejudice due to Plaintiffs’ failure to timely bring the action to trial. As such, the issue of whether it is more likely than not that the appellate court will reverse the order of dismissal with prejudice. The Court finds that it is not more likely that the appellate court will reverse the order of dismissal with prejudice. As explained in the Court’s January 24, 2020 Minute Order, Plaintiff essentially conceded that the Court was required to dismiss the action with prejudice pursuant to the provisions governing mandatory dismissal of actions that are not brought to trial within five years. (See 01/24/2020 Minute Order, pp. 4-8 (citing Code Civ. Proc., §§ 583.310 & 583.360).) The Court noted that:

It is clear that Plaintiffs have not been diligent in bringing this matter to trial. Defendants have been required to litigate this case for over five years now, and have twice prepared for trial. The five-year rule exists to protect defendants against a plaintiff’s lack of diligence, as has been exemplified here. (See, e.g., Gaines, supra, (2016) 62 Cal.4th at 1105.) [¶] In conclusion, the FAC “relates back” to the Complaint. This action was commenced against on October 3, 2014. Accounting for the 59-day stay, the deadline for Plaintiffs to bring this action to trial was December 2, 2019. Accordingly, the action must be dismissed in its entirety under the five-year rule. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 583.310 and 583.360.)

(01/24/2020 Minute Order at p. 8.)

Accordingly, given the bases for the Court’s dismissal of the action, the Court finds that it is not more likely than not that the appellate court will reverse the dismissal. Further, Plaintiffs have failed to oppose this motion, essentially conceding to Defendant Verzfco’s arguments here. (See Cal. R. Ct. 8.54(c) [“A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion.”].)

For the reasons articulated above, Defendant Verzfco’s Motion is GRANTED.

Case Number: BC559815    Hearing Date: January 21, 2020    Dept: 19

On the Court's own motion, Plaintiffs Benny Newton and Ronald Moore's Motions for Summary Adjudication and Plaintiff Ronald Moore's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings are all CONTINUED TO March 4, 2020, 8:30 a.m.

The Court needs additional time to consider and issue a final ruling on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.

Counsel for Defendants Old Republic Title Co.,Verzfco LLC and Blake Uradomo  to give notice.

Please note:  If this new hearing date conflicts with any counsel's schedule, please contact counsel for the opposing parties first and select three dates that are mutually available, and then contact the court staff regarding rescheduling.

Case Number: BC559815    Hearing Date: November 27, 2019    Dept: 19

Plaintiff Ronald Moore’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is CONTINUED to January 7, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 19, Stanley Mosk Courthouse.  Plaintiff’s counsel failed to comply with the meet and confer requirements prior to filing the instant motion.  (See Code Civ. Proc. sections  439; 430.41(a); Cloud v. Northrop Grumman (1998) 67 Cal.App. 4th 995, 999) .)  Plaintiff is ordered to meet and confer with Defendant in good faith pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 439.  If no agreement can be reached, Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to file a supplemental declaration that describes good faith meet-and-confer efforts at least 10 court days before the continued hearing date, courtesy copies delivered to Department 19.  Additionally, the Court notes that Defendant has not supplied the Court with printed courtesy copies of the Opposition papers as required.  (See General Order re: Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil and Department 19 Courtroom Information Link on the LASC website.) 

Defendant is ordered to provide a courtesy copy of the opposition by December 18, 2019, if the motion remains on calendar.

Counsel for Plaintiff to give notice.