Huweih v. US Bank Trust, N.A. As Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust et al

Filing 41

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO EXPUNGE NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION AND FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES. The Notice of Pendency of Action recorded December 21, 2015, in the Alameda County Recorder's office as instrument no. 2015332629 is ordered expunged. Defendants are awarded attorney's fees in the amount of $1050. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 01/31/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2017)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

AMAL HUWEIH,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

US BANK TRUST, N.A. AS TRUSTEE
FOR LSF9 MASTER PARTICIPATION
TRUST, et al.,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'
MOTION TO EXPUNGE NOTICE OF
PENDENCY OF ACTION AND FOR
AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES
Re: Dkt. No. 32

Defendants.

12
13

Case No. 16-cv-00421-MMC

Before the Court is the “Motion to Expunge Notice of Pendency of Action or

14

Require a Bond,” jointly filed December 19, 2016, by defendants U.S. Bank Trust, N.A.,

15

as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust, Caliber Home Loans, Inc., and Summit

16

Management Company, LLC. Plaintiff Amal Huweih (“Huweih”) has filed opposition, to

17

which defendants have replied.1 Having read and considered the papers filed in support

18

of and in opposition to the motion, the Court rules as follows.2
BACKGROUND

19
20

On December 21, 2015, Huweih filed the instant action in state court, alleging in

21

her complaint that she owned certain real property in Livermore, California, and that

22

defendants had instituted non-judicial foreclosure proceedings without having a legal right

23
24
25
26
27

1

The chambers copy of defendants’ reply was submitted in double-sided format.
Defendants are reminded that all hard copies must be submitted in single-sided format.
See Civil L.R. 3-4(c)(2) (providing “text must appear on one side only” of papers
presented for filing); Standing Orders For Civil Cases Assigned to the Honorable Maxine
M. Chesney ¶ 2 (providing chambers copies “shall be submitted . . . in single-sided
format”).
2

28

By order filed January 20, 2017, the Court took the matter under submission.

1

to do so. (See Compl. ¶¶ 2, 16; Compl. Ex. A.) Also on December 21, 2015, Huweih

2

recorded with the Alameda County Recorder a “Notice of Pendency of Action - Lis

3

Pendens” (hereinafter, “Notice”), stating therein that the Livermore property was the

4

subject of litigation. (See Defs.’ Req. for Judicial Notice, filed Dec. 19, 2016, Ex. C.) On

5

January 25, 2016, defendants removed the instant action to federal court on the basis of

6

diversity jurisdiction. (See Not. Removal at 1.) By order filed January 31, 2017, the

7

Court dismissed Huweih’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be

8

granted, with leave to file an amended complaint by February 17, 2017. (See Order, filed

9

Jan. 31, 2017, at 12:8-9.)
DISCUSSION

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

By the instant motion, defendants seek an order expunging the above-referenced

12

Notice, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 405.31 and § 405.32, or, in the

13

alternative, an order requiring Huweih to post an undertaking of at least $164,153 as a

14

condition of maintaining the Notice, pursuant to § 405.34. Additionally, defendants seek

15

to recover the attorney’s fees they incurred in filing the instant motion.

16

A. Expungement

17

Under California law, “[a] party to an action who asserts a real property claim may

18

record a notice of pendency of action in which that real property claim is alleged.” See

19

Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 405.20. “At any time after notice of pendency of action has been

20

recorded, any party, or any nonparty with an interest in the real property affected thereby,

21

may apply to the court in which the action is pending to expunge the notice.” See id.

22

§ 405.30. “Unlike most other motions, when a motion to expunge is brought, the burden

23

is on the party opposing the motion” to demonstrate expungement is not warranted. See

24

Kirkeby v. Superior Court of Orange Cty., 33 Cal. 4th 642, 647 (2004).

25

Here, as defendants point out, one ground on which a notice of pendency of action

26

may be expunged is where “the pleading on which the notice is based does not contain a

27

real property claim.” See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 405.31. A real property claim is one

28

“which would, if meritorious, affect . . . title to, or the right to possession of, specific real
2

1

property,” see id. ¶ 405.4, and which is “properly plead[ed],” see Kirkeby, 33 Cal. 4th at

2

647. In this instance, although, as discussed above, Huweih’s claims are subject to

3

dismissal, the Court has afforded Huweih leave to file an amended complaint (see Order,

4

filed Jan. 31, 2017, at 12:8-9) and, consequently, finds expungement of the Notice is not

5

at this time warranted under § 405.31. See Gomez v. Plaza Home Mortg., Inc., No.

6

09cv2855-L (RBB), 2011 WL 940762, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2011) (denying motion to

7

expunge without prejudice to renewal, where plaintiff granted leave to amend complaint);

8

Figueiredo v. Loan, No. C 09-4784 BZ, 2010 WL 935323, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 15, 2010)

9

(same).

10

As defendants also point out, however, another ground on which a notice of

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

pendency of action may be expunged is where “the claimant has not established by a

12

preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim.” See Cal.

13

Code Civ. Proc. § 405.32; see also id. § 405.1 (defining “claimant” as party “who asserts

14

a real property claim and records a notice of the pendency of action”); § 405.30

15

(providing claimant has “burden” to establish probable validity). “Probable validity, with

16

respect to a real property claim, means that it is more likely than not that the claimant will

17

obtain a judgment against the defendant on the claim.” Id. § 405.3.

18

Here, Huweih argues she has “established a probability of prevailing on her claims

19

for violations of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 2923.5, 2923.55, and 2923.6.” (See Opp. at 13:19-20,

20

13:25-26.) In support thereof, however, Huweih refers only to the allegations in her

21

complaint. (See id. at 13:20-24.) She offers no “declarations [or] other admissible

22

evidence to establish by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of [her]

23

claims.” See Thomas v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust, No. 12-00472 CRB, 2012 WL

24

1600434, at *5 (N.D. Cal. 2012). In such circumstances, the Court finds Huweih has

25

failed to meet her burden of establishing the probable validity of any claim asserted in her

26

complaint. See id. (holding claimant has “burden to come forward with declarations and

27

other admissible evidence”; granting motion to expunge where plaintiff “failed to produce

28

any evidence” in support of allegations in complaint) (emphasis in original).
3

1
2

Accordingly, to the extent defendants seek expungement of the Notice, the motion
will be granted.3

3

B. Attorney’s Fees.

4

Under California law, “[t]he court shall direct that the party prevailing on any [such]

5

motion . . . be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of making or opposing the

6

motion unless the court finds that the other party acted with substantial justification or that

7

other circumstances make the imposition of attorney’s fees and costs unjust.” See Cal.

8

Code Civ. Proc. § 405.38.

9

Here, as noted, Huweih, in support of her filing of the Notice, has not submitted
any declaration or other evidence to demonstrate the merit of her claims, and nothing in

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the record otherwise suggests the imposition of attorney’s fees would be unjust. Under

12

such circumstances, the Court finds defendants are entitled to an award of the

13

reasonable fees and costs they incurred in bringing the instant motion.

14

In that regard, defendants seek an award of fees in the amount of $3500,

15

comprising a total of ten hours at the hourly rate of $350. In particular, as set forth in a

16

declaration filed by defendants in support of their request for fees, defendants seek an

17

award based on three hours expended in bringing the instant motion, as well as an

18

estimated additional three hours based on review of any opposition and preparation of a

19

reply plus four hours to prepare for and appear at a hearing. (See Goldstein Dec. ¶ 3.)

20

The Court finds the hourly rate reasonable and, to the extent defendants seek an award

21

reflecting the three hours spent in preparing the motion, the Court finds such expenditure

22

of time likewise is reasonable. (See id.) To the extent defendants seek fees for an

23

additional seven hours of anticipated work, however, the Court finds defendants have

24

failed to show such an award is reasonable, in that no further declaration was submitted

25

after work pertaining to the opposition and reply had in fact been performed, and because

26
27
28

3

In light of the above ruling, the Court does not address herein defendants’
alternative argument in support of a bond under § 405.34.
4

1

the Court, as noted, took the motion under submission without conducting a hearing.

2

Accordingly, defendants will be awarded their attorney’s fees and costs in the

3

amount of $1050.

4

CONCLUSION

5

For the reasons stated above, defendants’ motion is GRANTED, as follows:

6

1. The Notice of Pendency of Action recorded December 21, 2015, in the

7

Alameda County Recorder’s office as instrument no. 2015332629, is hereby ordered

8

EXPUNGED.

9

2. Defendants are hereby AWARDED attorney’s fees in the amount of $1050.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: January 31, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5