Plaintiff filed Action #1 against DiMartini and recorded a lis pendens.  DiMartini’s motion to expunge the lis pendens was granted because the action sought to enforce an arbitration award and did not allege a real property claim.  After abandoning Action #1, plaintiff filed Action #2 and again recorded a lis pendens.  This decision holds that under CCP 405.36, a plaintiff whose prior lis pendens has been expunged must obtain court permission before recording a new lis pendens against the same property in the same or any later action.  Also, the court must grant a motion to expunge unless the party that recorded the lis pendens proves by a preponderance of the evidence the probable validity of his real property claim.  Here, the trial court erred in allowing the recording party to escape expungement by merely a prima facie showing of probable validity.  The prima facie standard was the rule before the 1992 amendments to the lis pendens statutes, but now proof by a preponderance of the evidence is required.