Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01524/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01524-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 240
Nature of Suit: Torts to Land
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Torts to Land

---

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

 1Lis pendens is a statutory substitute for notice of a legal proceeding which affects the

title to realty. A.R.S. § 12-1191. Kelly v. Perry, 531 P.2d 139 (Ariz. 1975).

 2The properties referred to in this Order are the Sangria and Ellsworth Properties

referenced in the record.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kathy L. Jamieson, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Lawrence B. Slater, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1524-PHX-SMM

 CV 06-2261-PHX-SMM

ORDER ON MOTION TO QUASH LIS

PENDENS

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Kathy Jamieson’s Expedited Motion to Quash

the Lis Pendens1

 filed on her properties2 by Defendant Monica Jagelski. (“Jagelski”) (Dkt.

21). Jamieson alleges that Defendant Jagelski, in conspiracy with Co-Defendants James

Marchant and Lawrence Slater, filed groundless lis pendens on the properties in an attempt

to unlawfully acquire Plaintiff's real property. Jagelski contends that she is entitled to fee

simple ownership of one-fourth of the properties at issue. Although it appears on its face that

the underlying action affects title in this case, because of the particularities of this specific

case and the underlying issues including those in the corresponding state actions involving

community property, constructive trusts, and other complex issues areas of the law, the Court

finds the following.

Case 2:06-cv-01524-SMM Document 41 Filed 03/20/07 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

27

28

 3The Court expects that all appropriate documents will be authenticated and filed in

accordance with the Federal and Local Rules of Civil Procedure.

- 2 -

In deciding a Motion to Quash, the scope of the trial court's inquiry is generally

limited to determining whether the action is one “affecting title to real property.” A.R.S. §

12-1191(A). "While some examination of the merits of the case may be required for this

purpose, the action under § 33-420 is not intended to be an expedited hearing on the

underlying action." Evergreen West, Inc. v. Boyd, 810 P.2d 612, 618 (Ariz.App.,1991).

"The purpose of A.R.S. § 33-420 is to permit the expeditious removal of a lis pendens

alleged to be groundless only where the claim that the underlying action is one affecting title

to real property has no arguable basis or is not supported by any credible evidence...while

this determination may require the trial court to look beyond the pleadings, it should not

involve a decision on the merits of the underlying action. Upon a showing that the claim has

'some basis,' Coventry Homes, Inc. v. Scottscom Partnership, 155 Ariz. 215, 745 P.2d 962

(App.1987), the lis pendens should remain in effect until a trial on the merits." Evergreen

West, Inc., 810 P.2d at 619. 

After careful consideration, the Court finds that the Plaintiff is ultimately seeking to

resolve the merits of the case through a Motion to Quash Lis Pendens. In the instant case,

it is the Court's determination that the appropriate vehicle to accomplish what is sought in

Plaintiff's Complaint is through a Motion for Summary Judgment filed in accordance with

Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.3 Given the specific circumstances of this

case, the Court finds that it is critical to examine the merits of the case in order to properly

decide the Motion to Quash, requiring examination of a nature that the Court finds best suited

for summary judgment. Moreover, if the Court finds that summary judgment in favor of

Jamieson is appropriate, the removal of the lis pendens will be part and parcel of the granting

of summary judgment. In sum, the Court finds that in the instant case, the act of quashing

Case 2:06-cv-01524-SMM Document 41 Filed 03/20/07 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

27

28 - 3 -

the lis pendens is a byproduct of the determination of the merits of this case. Therefore, the

Expedited Motion to Quash the Lis Pendens (Dkt. 21) is hereby DENIED, without prejudice.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Expedited Motion to Quash Lis Pendens

is hereby DENIED.

DATED this 20th day of March, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01524-SMM Document 41 Filed 03/20/07 Page 3 of 3