Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00484/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00484-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAGJEEVAN K. DHALIWAL AND 

MOHINDER S. GILL,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

KS CHANDI & SONS, INC., et. al. ,

 Defendants.

1:13-CV-484-LJO-SKO

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

TO EXPUNGE LIS PENDENS (Doc. 103)

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1

This case concerns a dispute between the parties’ involvement in purchasing gas stations. Doc. 

14, First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) at 5. Plaintiffs Jagjeevan K. Dhaliwal and Mohinder S. Gill 

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege that they loaned money to Defendant Nirmal Singh, who allegedly 

promised to invest the money in two companies, Defendants Chandi Brothers, LLC (“Chandi Brothers”) 

and KS Chandi & Sons (“KS Chandi”) (collectively, “Defendants”). 

Disputes between the parties arose over the use of the money, the purchase and sale of the gas 

stations, and the parties’ respective debts and obligations to one another. Plaintiffs subsequently filed 

their complaint. Based on this suit, on August 11, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Pendency of Action 

with the Stanislaus County Recorder’s Office as document number 2014-0052097-00 (“the lis 

pendens”). Doc. 103-1 at 3. 

Currently pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion to expunge lis pendens. Doc. 103. The 

 

1 The following facts are undisputed unless otherwise indicated.

Case 1:13-cv-00484-SKO Document 124 Filed 09/16/14 Page 1 of 3
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

2

thrust of Defendants’ motion is that the lis pendens should be expunged because the FAC contains no 

real property claim, which is a necessary prerequisite for filing a lis pendens. Defendants further assert 

that, evening assuming the FAC contains a real property claim, Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of 

showing the probable validity of any such claim. Doc. 103-3 at 6. Plaintiffs argue that they “have an 

absolute right to file [the lis pendens] against the subject property because they have a claim for a real 

property interest” and the FAC, specifically, the first cause of action for breach of contract, contains a 

real property claim. Doc. 115 at 2.

The Court has reviewed the papers and has determined that the matter is suitable for decision 

without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). For the reasons discussed below, the Court 

GRANTS Defendants’ motion to expunge lis pendens.

II. DISCUSSION

Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 405.20, “[a] party to an action who asserts a real 

property claim may record a notice of pendency of action, [a lis pendens], in which that real property 

claim is alleged.” The party opposing the motion to expunge bears the burden of proving by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the pleading on which the notice of lis pendens is based contains a 

valid real property claim. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 405.30, 405.31, 405.32. Accordingly, “[a] court 

should expunge a lis pendens if it determines that ‘the pleading on which the notice is based does not 

contain a real property claim,’ or if a real property claim ‘as pled lacks evidentiary merit.’” Rey v. 

OneWest Bank, FSB, No. 2:12-CV-2078-MCE-GGH, 2013 WL 1791910, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 26, 

2013) (quoting Park 1000 Inv. Group II v. Ryan, 180 Cal. App. 4th 795, 808 (2009)). If the operative 

pleading contains a real property claim, the Court must then determine whether “it is more likely than 

not that the claimant will obtain a judgment against the defendant on the claim.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 

405.3; Maxwell v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., No. 13-CV-3957-WHO (WHO), 2013 WL 6072109, 

at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013).

Even assuming the FAC contains a real property claim (which appears questionable), Plaintiffs 

have provided no credible evidence or argument that suggests they are likely to succeed against 

Case 1:13-cv-00484-SKO Document 124 Filed 09/16/14 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Defendants on any such claim. Plaintiffs merely argue that the FAC contains a real property claim and, 

therefore, the lis pendens is valid. See Doc. 115 at 2-3. Plaintiffs do not (and cannot) provide any 

support for that proposition.

2

Plaintiffs have failed to provide preponderant evidence that the pleading on 

which the notice of lis pendens is based—the FAC—contains a valid real property claim on which they 

will succeed against Defendants. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §§ 405.30, 405.31, 405.32. Accordingly, the 

Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to expunge lis pendens.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to expunge lis pendens (Doc. 

103).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

2

Plaintiffs attached over 75 pages of documentation to their opposition to Defendants’ motion. See Doc. 115-1. Plaintiffs 

provide no explanation as to how those documents demonstrate that the lis pendens is valid.

Case 1:13-cv-00484-SKO Document 124 Filed 09/16/14 Page 3 of 3