Lopez-Farooq v. Breckenridge Property Fund 2016 CA2/1, B333940M

Mylene Lopez-Farooq filed a lawsuit in 2017 alleging fraudulent transactions and forgery related to the foreclosure of her Santa Clarita property; later, Ibrahim Farooq was added as a co-plaintiff.
Lopez-Farooq recorded a lis pendens (notice of pending litigation effecting real property) on the property in 2018.
In May 2022, Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC, a third party to the original dispute, purchased the property at a trustee’s sale.
The trial court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice and subsequently granted Breckenridge’s motion to expunge the lis pendens, finding no remaining claim affecting the property.
Appellants moved to vacate the expungement order, asserting fraud and legal error, but the trial court denied this motion.
Lopez-Farooq and Farooq appealed the denial of their motion to vacate the expungement, not the expungement order itself.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is an order denying a motion to vacate an expungement of a lis pendens appealable?	Lopez-Farooq argued appeal is proper under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d) due to fraud on the court.	Breckenridge argued no statutory authority allows appeal; only writ review is available for expungement orders.	Not appealable; appeal dismissed.
Does Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d) permit vacating an expungement order based on fraud?	Lopez-Farooq argued that the expungement was obtained via fraud and should be vacated under § 473(d).	Breckenridge asserted § 473(d) only covers clerical errors or void judgments, not extrinsic fraud as claimed.	§ 473(d) does not authorize relief for alleged fraud in this context.
Can a party indirectly appeal a nonappealable order by moving to vacate and then appealing the denial?	Lopez-Farooq contended that denial of a motion to vacate is appealable even if the underlying order is not.	Breckenridge argued established law bars "doing indirectly what cannot be done directly."	Denial of motion to vacate nonappealable order is not appealable.
Does alleged fraud in the acquisition of title by Breckenridge allow for vacating the expungement order?	Lopez-Farooq claimed the title was infected by fraud warranting relief.	Breckenridge maintained no evidence supported the fraud claim and the issue was judicial, not clerical or void for jurisdiction.	No relief granted; claims were extrinsic, not jurisdictional or clerical errors.

Spellens v. Spellens, 49 Cal. 2d 210 (Cal. 1957) (forbids appealing a nonappealable order by moving to vacate and then appealing denial)
Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com., 25 Cal. 4th 688 (Cal. 2001) (appellate courts have jurisdiction only over appealable orders or judgments)
Woodridge Escondido Property Owners Assn. v. Nielsen, 130 Cal. App. 4th 559 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (orders granting or denying expungement of lis pendens are not appealable)
Rooney v. Vermont Investment Corp., 10 Cal. 3d 351 (Cal. 1973) (denial of motion to vacate an appealable judgment is itself appealable)