Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01623/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01623-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Civil Remedies: Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1 

17-cv-1623-AJB-JLB 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JENNIFER VAN GALDER, an 

individual, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

ROGER CLARK, an individual, 

MELISSA SCOTT CLARK, an 

individual, SOUR WINE FARMS LLC, a 

Delaware limited liability company, et al., 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 17-cv-1623-AJB-JLB 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO 

SHORTEN TIME TO FILE A 

MOTION TO EXPUNGE 

PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF 

PENDENCY OF ACTION 

 On October 17, 2017, Defendants Melissa Clark and Sour Wine Farms, LLC 

(collectively referred to as “Defendants”) filed an ex parte application requesting that the 

Court shorten the time for a noticed hearing on their motion to expunge the lis pendens 

filed by Plaintiff with the San Diego County Recorder’s Office. (Doc. No. 28.) Plaintiff 

Jennifer Van Galder (“Plaintiff”) did not file an opposition to the application. 

BACKGROUND1

 In March of 2015, Defendant Melissa Clark allegedly purchased a property directly 

                                                                

1

 The Court employed the allegations as provided by Defendants in their ex parte motion. 

Case 3:17-cv-01623-AJB-JLB Document 31 Filed 10/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2 

17-cv-1623-AJB-JLB 

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

from the owners, Jeffrey and Karen Dunham, located at 14130 Bahama Cove, Del Mar, 

California (“the Property”). (Doc. No. 28 at 2.) In July of 2015, Defendant Roger Clark 

filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. (Id.) Plaintiff then subsequently filed an adversarial 

action to Mr. Clark’s bankruptcy case. (Id.) After Mr. Clark agreed to the nondischargeability of his debts, Plaintiff filed the present action alleging that all of the 

Defendants committed fraud in Mr. Clark’s bankruptcy action. (Id.) 

 On August 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Pendency of Action with the San 

Diego County Recorder’s Office. (Id.) The Notice included a copy of the original complaint 

and a description of the Property. (Id.) Defendants allege that they were not served with 

the Notice. (Id.) The Property was then put on the market and sold. (Id.) It was during the 

title search that Ms. Clark claims that she first saw the Notice. (Id.) Defendants state that 

the Property is currently in escrow with a closing date in November of 2017. (Id at 3.) 

DISCUSSION 

Defendants state that they are cognizant that a request to expunge a notice of 

pendency of action is a noticed motion that would normally require an ordinary briefing 

schedule by the Court. (Id.) However, Defendants argue that time is of the essence as there 

is a cloud on the title to the Property and that the urgency is due to Plaintiff’s failure to 

provide Defendants notice of the pendency action according to the rules as set forth in the 

California Code of Civil Procedure. (Id. at 5.) 

 California Code of Civil Procedure governs notice of pendency actions. Cal. Civ. 

Proc. §§ 405 et seq. The statute states among other things that prior to recordation that a 

copy of the notice is to be served to all parties to whom the real property claim is adverse 

to and all owners of the real property. Id. § 405.22. In addition, after the notice has been 

recorded, any party can apply to the court in which the action is pending to expunge the 

notice. Id. § 405.30. 

 Based on the allegations presented in the ex parte motion, the Court finds that the 

motion to shorten time to hear Defendants’ motion to expunge the notice is warranted. 

First, Defendants have established some form of irreparable prejudice if the motion is heard 

Case 3:17-cv-01623-AJB-JLB Document 31 Filed 10/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3 

17-cv-1623-AJB-JLB 

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

on the regular motion calendar as the Notice may affect the sale of the Property. See 

Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 493 (C.D. Cal. 1995). 

Moreover, Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to the application, and based on Judge 

Battaglia’s Civil Case Procedures “[e]x parte motions that are not opposed, will be 

considered unopposed and may be granted on that ground.” Civ. Case. Proc. III.2. Based 

on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ ex parte application. 

CONCLUSION 

As explained more fully above, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to shorten 

the time to hear their motion to expunge the notice of pendency of action filed by Plaintiff. 

The briefing schedule for the motion is as follows: 

- Defendants are to file their motion to expunge by October 23, 2017

- Opposition papers are due October 27, 2017

- Reply papers are due October 30, 2017 

- The motion hearing will be set for November 6, 2017

The motion and opposition are not to exceed fifteen pages, and the reply brief is not to 

exceed 5 pages in length. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 20, 2017 

Case 3:17-cv-01623-AJB-JLB Document 31 Filed 10/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3