Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00501-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 12:1819 Default of Promissory Note

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNLY BECKER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-12-501 KJM CKD PS

vs.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., INC.,

Defendant. ORDER 

 /

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed an ex parte motion for court approval of a lis

pendens for the properties which are the subject of the instant action. Under California Code of

Civil Procedure section 405.21, court approval is a prerequisite to recording of a lis pendens

signed by a person acting in propria persona. 

Plaintiff’s claim to a lis pendens rests on his cause of action to quiet title. This

claim cannot lie in that plaintiff fails to allege tender of the full amount owed on the loan. See

Shimpones v. Stickney, 219 Cal. 637, 649 (1934) (mortgagor cannot quiet his title against the

mortgagee without paying the debt secured); see also Aguilar v. Bocci, 39 Cal. App. 3d 475, 477

(1974); Kelley v. Mortgage Electronic Registration, 642 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1057 (N.D. Cal.

2009) (“Plaintiffs have not alleged . . . that they have satisfied their obligation under the Deed of

Trust. As such, they have not stated a claim to quiet title.”).

Case 2:12-cv-00501-KJM-CKD Document 5 Filed 03/05/12 Page 1 of 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

Since plaintiff’s claim to quiet title appears to have no merit, defendants would be

entitled to expungement of the notice of any lis pendens. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 405.32 (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”). 

 Id. § 405.32. Under these circumstances, the court does not find a lis pendens is warranted.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s ex parte motion for court

approval of lis pendens (dkt. no. 4) is denied.

Dated: March 5, 2012

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

becker.lispend

2

Case 2:12-cv-00501-KJM-CKD Document 5 Filed 03/05/12 Page 2 of 2