Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 12 Honorable Nahal Iravani-Sani, Presiding Courtroom Clerk, Ryan Nguyen 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 882-2230
DATE: 07/08/2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M.
LINE 7 25CV478158 Home Loan Eagle, Inc. Motion: Compel vs Jordon Trigg et al. Plaintiff’s motion to compel discovery responses and deem admissions admitted, filed March 13, 2026. Plaintiff has demonstrated that Requests for Admissions were properly served, the time to respond has expired, and no response has been served on propounding party.
Notice is proper. The Court has received no opposition from Defendant. “[T]he failure to file an opposition creates an inference that the motion or demurrer is meritorious.” (Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.)
Good cause appearing, the motion is GRANTED. The truth of all specified facts in the Request for Admissions, Set One, propounded by Plaintiff on Defendant on January 12, 2026, shall be deemed admitted.
Sanctions are GRANTED in the amount of $1,487.50 (2 hours @ $595.00 for attorney James Roberts’ reasonable fees) pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 2023.030.
Plaintiff to prepare the final order that repeats the admissions to be admitted verbatim, accompanied by the necessary Forms EFS-020, within 7 days of the date of the hearing.
LINE 8 26CV483739 Yen Lucero Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens vs Ha Dao et al. Please CTRL click (or scroll down to) Line 8
LINE 9 26CV484025 Rubin Zou Hearing: Demurrer vs Amazon.com, Inc. et al. Please CTRL click (or scroll down to) Line 9
Calendar Line 8 Case Name: Yen Lucero v. Ha V. Dao Case No.: 26CV483739
Defendants' Motion to Expunge Notice of Pendency of Action
A notice of pendency of action shall be expunged unless the claimant establishes by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of the real property claim. (Code Civ. Proc., § 405.32.) The claimant bears the burden of proof.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Plaintiff's opposition clarifies that the alleged fraudulent transfer is not limited to the approximately $21,000 withdrawal discussed in Defendants' moving papers. Rather, Plaintiff now contends that the relevant transfer consists of the approximately $425,000 cash down payment used to purchase the subject property and the conveyance of an ownership interest to Defendant Khoi Truong Nguyen, whom Plaintiff characterizes as an insider receiving title without consideration. Plaintiff further seeks to impose a constructive trust and avoid the alleged transfer. Assuming without deciding that these allegations are sufficient to assert a "real property claim" within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 405.4, Plaintiff nevertheless fails to establish the probable validity of that claim.
The evidence submitted does not demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that funds belonging to the judgment debtor were used to acquire the subject property or that the debtor transferred an interest in the property subject to avoidance. Although Plaintiff argues that the $425,000 down payment represented fraudulently transferred assets, Plaintiff offers no competent evidence tracing those funds to the judgment debtor. Likewise, Plaintiff has not presented evidence establishing that Defendant Ha Vu Le Dao held an ownership interest in the property that was transferred or concealed. By contrast, Defendants submit declarations stating that Hien Van Dao provided the down payment, obtained the mortgage financing, and that Ha Vu Le Dao never held title to the property.
Plaintiff also relies upon a June 30, 2026 Bankruptcy Court order authorizing the Chapter 7 Trustee to retain a forensic accounting firm to investigate potential avoidance issues. That order demonstrates only that further investigation has been authorized. It does not constitute a judicial finding that a fraudulent transfer occurred, nor does it establish the probable validity of Plaintiff's claims for purposes of Code of Civil Procedure section 405.32.
The Court also notes that Defendants argue Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue fraudulent transfer claims following Ha Vu Le Dao's Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing because such claims belong exclusively to the bankruptcy estate. The Court need not definitively resolve that issue on the present motion. Even assuming Plaintiff has standing to pursue the asserted claims, Plaintiff has not met the evidentiary burden required to establish their probable validity.
Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to carry her burden under Code of Civil Procedure section 405.32, and the Notice of Pendency of Action must be expunged.
Attorney's Fees
Defendants seek attorney's fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 405.38.
Although Defendants are the prevailing parties on the motion, the Court finds that an award of attorney's fees is not warranted. Plaintiff's claims, while ultimately insufficient to establish probable validity, were not wholly without substantial justification. Plaintiff presented a legal theory seeking to impose a constructive trust and avoid allegedly fraudulent transfers affecting title to the property. Additionally, the Bankruptcy Court's authorization for the Chapter 7 Trustee to retain a forensic accountant to investigate potential avoidance claims provides some objective basis for Plaintiff's belief that further inquiry into the challenged transactions is warranted. While that order does not establish the merits of Plaintiff's claims, it supports the conclusion that Plaintiff's position was not frivolous or entirely lacking in factual foundation.
Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion to deny Defendants' request for attorney's fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 405.38.
Disposition
1. Defendants' Motion to Expunge Notice of Pendency of Action is GRANTED.
2. The Notice of Pendency of Action recorded against the subject property shall be expunged.
3. Defendants' request for attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 405.38 is DENIED.
Defendant to prepare the final proposed order accompanied by the necessary Form EFS-020 within 7 days of the hearing.
- oo0oo -