Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-1_10-cv-00679/USCOURTS-cand-1_10-cv-00679-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1601 Truth in Lending

---

NO. C 10-0679 RS 

ORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

*E-Filed 07/30/2010* 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

KAROL DAVENPORT, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

LITTON LOAN SERVICING, et al., 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 10-0679 RS 

ORDER 

 Defendants ask the Court to expunge a lis pendens plaintiff Karol Davenport had recorded 

on January 14, 2010 following the sale of her home at foreclosure. This matter is appropriately 

resolved without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). The hearing scheduled for 

August 5, 2010 at 1:30 p.m. is therefore vacated. 

Under California law, a court “shall” expunge a lis pendens if it finds that “the claimant has 

not established by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim.” 

Cal. Civ. Proc. § 405.32. “Probable validity” means that “it is more likely than not that the claimant 

will obtain a judgment against the defendant on the claim.” Orange County v. Hongkong and 

Shanghai Banking Corp. Ltd., 52 F.3d 821, 824 (9th Cir. 1995). 

The moving defendants concede that several claims for relief, including Davenport’s state 

law rescission claim, at least arguably constitute real property claims. (Defs.’ Mot. at 6.) On July, 

Case 1:10-cv-00679-NJV Document 34 Filed 07/30/10 Page 1 of 2
NO. C 

ORDER

2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

16, 2010, this Court dismissed all twenty-six claims brought in Davenport’s First Amended 

Complaint. Most, including the state law rescission claim, were dismissed with leave to amend. 

Davenport has not yet filed a Second Amended Complaint and it would be premature to assess the 

probable validity of this or any of her real property claims. The moving defendants’ motion to 

expunge the lis pendens is therefore denied as premature. Defendants’ request for attorney fees is 

also denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 07/30/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00679-NJV Document 34 Filed 07/30/10 Page 2 of 2