Bernstein v. Banco Popular North America

Background

The self-represented plaintiffs filed a 655-page complaint titled “Complaint for Real Property,” along with documents concerning foreclosure proceedings. The allegations were unclear but appeared to concern real property in Fremont, California. The defendants appeared to include a bank, a law firm, title-insurance, collection, and foreclosure entities, a homeowners association, and individuals involved with that association. The plaintiffs asserted diversity jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs filed applications asking the court to approve recording notices of lis pendens. A lis pendens gives public notice that a lawsuit may affect title to, or the right to possess, described real property. It can cloud the property’s title and interfere with its transfer while the lawsuit is pending.

Legal standard

Because the plaintiffs were representing themselves, California law required a judge’s approval before they could record a notice of lis pendens. They had to show that their pleading contained a “real property claim”—a claim that, if successful, would affect title to or possession of specific property—and had to establish the claim’s “probable validity.” The court explained that probable validity means it is more likely than not that the claimant will obtain a judgment on the claim.

Court’s action

The court found that the complaint’s 655 pages of “rambling and disparate allegations,” together with its appended and interspersed documents, were so prolix and argumentative that they did not provide fair notice of the grounds for the plaintiffs’ claims. As a result, the court could not properly determine whether the plaintiffs had established the probable validity of a real-property claim.

The court allowed the plaintiffs to resubmit a request to record lis pendens that complies with the Northern District of California’s Civil Local Rules concerning motions, notice, supporting papers, brief contents and length, and emergency or one-sided motions. The court warned that continued disregard of the local rules could lead to orders striking the plaintiffs’ filings. The court also referred the self-represented plaintiffs to the court’s handbook and federal pro se program for information and limited-scope legal assistance.

The order did not expressly use the word “denied” for the applications; it stated that the plaintiffs could resubmit a compliant request. No defendant had appeared in the action when the order was issued.