Glassman v. Best CA4/3 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/23/24 Glassman v. Best CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
RICK GLASSMAN,
Plaintiff and Appellant, G063067
v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2023-01336192)
MILTON BEST et al., ORDER MODIFYING OPINION;
NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT
Defendants and Respondents.
It is ordered that the opinion filed October 15, 2024, be modified as
follows:
The caption is MODIFIED to reflect that the correct superior
court case number is 30-2023-01336192. The court’s opinion inadvertently
omitted the final digit of the case number (2).
There is no change in the judgment.
SANCHEZ, J.
WE CONCUR:
O’LEARY, P. J.
MOORE, J.
2
Filed 10/15/24 Glassman v. Best CA4/3 (unmodified opinion)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
RICK GLASSMAN,
Plaintiff and Appellant, G063067
v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2023-01336192)
MILTON BEST et al., OPINION
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County,
Erick L. Larsh, Judge. Dismissed.
LGI and Bradley A. Patterson for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Kenny Law Group and Jeffrey S. Kenny for Defendants and
Respondents.
* * *
In this dispute over a residential escrow contract, plaintiff Rick
Glassman appeals from the trial court’s order expunging a lis pendens that
had been recorded by Glassman. His position is this: the contract, which is
otherwise subject to arbitration, contains an express carve out for filing a lis
pendens in the superior court; however, in Glassman’s view, that carve out
does not allow defendants Milton and Lorraine Best (the Bests) to challenge
the lis pendens in the trial court. We do not reach that claim, however,
because an order expunging a lis pendens is not appealable. Accordingly, we
must dismiss the appeal.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In July 2023, Glassman filed the underlying lawsuit against the
Bests, asserting causes of action for breach of written contract and
declaratory relief.
A detailed recitation of the facts is unnecessary to resolving this
appeal, but the gist is this: Glassman entered into an escrow contract to
purchase the Bests’ residence. Glassman took the position that a contingency
of escrow was that Glassman’s house would first sell. The Bests contend the
escrow contract had no such contingency. Glassman’s home did not sell prior
to the closing date of escrow. When Glassman did not complete the purchase
of the Bests’ home by the end of escrow, the Bests cancelled the escrow and
kept Glassman’s deposit of $180,000. Glassman sued to either close escrow or
recover the deposit.
Shortly after filing his complaint, Glassman filed a notice of
pendency of action, which he recorded.
Not long afterward, Glassman filed a motion to stay the
proceeding pending arbitration, citing an arbitration provision in the escrow
contract.
2
A few days later, the Bests filed a motion to expunge the lis
pendens. The court granted the motion. The court concluded that Glassman
had not shown a probability of prevailing on the merits. The court awarded
the Bests $8,145.90 in attorney fees. Glassman appealed from the minute
order expunging the lis pendens.
DISCUSSION
An order expunging a lis pendens is not appealable. Code of Civil
Procedure section 405.39, which is found in the chapter that governs motions
to expunge a lis pendens, states, “No order or other action of the court under
this chapter shall be appealable. Any party aggrieved by an order made on a
motion under this chapter may petition the proper reviewing court to review
the order by writ of mandate. The petition for writ of mandate shall be filed
and served within 20 days of service of written notice of the order by the
court or any party.” (Italics added.) In short, the only way to challenge a trial
court’s order expunging a lis pendens is by writ, which Glassman did not do.
Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal and
must dismiss it. (Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 688,
696 [“A reviewing court has jurisdiction over a direct appeal only when there
is (1) an appealable order or (2) an appealable judgment.”].)
3
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed. The Bests shall recover their costs
incurred on appeal.
SANCHEZ, J.
WE CONCUR:
O’LEARY, P. J.
MOORE, J.
4