Bever v. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp., 1:11-cv-01584

Plaintiff Bever sued multiple defendants; most claims were dismissed on Rule 12(b)(6) or resolved by summary judgment, leaving only an FDCPA claim against Cal‑Western.
The Court entered final judgment for CitiMortgage and MERS and stayed proceedings as to Cal‑Western due to bankruptcy; Plaintiff appealed those adverse rulings to the Ninth Circuit.
Plaintiff recorded a notice of pendency of action (lis pendens) and moved for court approval to record it post‑appeal.
The lis pendens statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 405.21) requires court approval when a party acting pro se seeks to record; lis pendens must be expunged if the pleading does not allege a real property claim (§ 405.31) or if the claimant cannot show probable validity (§ 405.32).
The only surviving claim (FDCPA) seeks monetary relief and would not affect title or possession; nearly all other claims affecting real property were dismissed or resolved against Plaintiff.
Cal‑Western is in bankruptcy, so recording a lis pendens against it likely would violate the automatic stay and be void.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court should approve recording a lis pendens	Bever sought court approval to record a notice of pendency to cloud title	Defendants contended no viable real property claim remains and recording would be improper or void	Denied — no basis to approve recording
Whether claims in the operative pleading are "real property claims"	Bever asserted the action affects property interests	Defendants noted the only surviving claim is FDCPA (monetary) and other property claims were dismissed or lost on summary judgment	Held not a real property claim; lis pendens not justified
Whether the court may approve recording while appeal is pending	Bever implicitly relied on ongoing appeal to justify lis pendens	Defendants argued the appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction over disposed claims	Court lacked jurisdiction to approve lis pendens on issues on appeal; cannot validate a real property claim while appeal pending
Whether recording against Cal‑Western would violate bankruptcy stay	Bever did not contest bankruptcy stay as a bar to recording	Defendants asserted bankruptcy stay prohibits and would render recording void	Court noted recordation likely would violate stay and be void

Kirkeby v. Superior Court, 33 Cal.4th 642 (2004) (defines lis pendens and standards for pleading a real property claim)
Slintak v. Buckeye Retirement Co., L.L.C., Ltd., 139 Cal.App.4th 575 (2006) (lis pendens clouds title until resolved)
Campbell v. Superior Court, 132 Cal.App.4th 904 (2005) (monetary damages claims are not real property claims)
Park 100 Investment Group III, LLC v. Ryan, 180 Cal.App.4th 795 (2009) (application of § 405.32 probable‑validity inquiry)
Laurino v. Syringa Gen. Hosp., 279 F.3d 750 (9th Cir. 2002) (appeal divests district court of jurisdiction over matters on appeal)
Davis v. United States, 667 F.2d 822 (9th Cir. 1982) (same principle on divestiture by appeal)
Ringgold‑Lockhart v. County of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2014) (limited exceptions to the rule that appeal divests district court jurisdiction)
In re Brooks‑Hamilton, 348 B.R. 512 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (recording lis pendens during bankruptcy stay may violate the automatic stay)