Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 2022-01245791, Date: 2023-07-18 Tentative Ruling

Motion to Expunge Mechanics Lien

Tentative Ruling:  Defendant/Cross-Complainant 2525 Main Apartment LP’s (“Defendant”) Lambert Motion to Release or Reduce Mechanic’s Lien is GRANTED.

Defendant seeks an order releasing Plaintiff Pacific Carpets, LLC’s mechanic’s lien and stop payment notice (“SPN”) which each claim the amount of $440,330.47.

Per Lambert v. Superior Court (1991) 228 Cal.App.3rd 383, a property owner may challenge a mechanic’s lien or stop notice via motion. (Id. at 387). As explained by the Court in Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 314, “[a] motion to remove a mechanic’s lien is recognized as a device that allows the property owner to obtain speedy relief from an unjustified lien or a lien of an unjustified amount without waiting for trial on the action to foreclose the lien.” (Id. at 318).

“The inquiry upon such motion is . . . limited to the ‘probable validity’ of the lien” and the burden is on the party opposing the motion– i.e., the claimant - plaintiff – to establish the probable validity of the underlying claim.” (Id. at 318-19).  “The claimant-plaintiff must establish the probable validity of the claim by a preponderance of the evidence.” (Id.).

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 405.3, “probable validity” means “that it is more likely than not that the claimant will obtain a judgment against the defendant on the claim.”

“[T]he question presented is not the ultimate merit of the contractor’s claim but whether the contractor should be entitled to retain the security of the mechanic’s lien or stop notice pending resolution of the matter.” (Cal Sierra Construction, Inc. v. Comerica Bank (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 841, 850.)

Here, in between the filing of the filing of the instant motion and this hearing, this court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s complaint. (ROA 207.) In doing so, this court found  Plaintiff’s claims—including the fifth cause of action for foreclosure of mechanic’s lien—were barred under Business and Professions Code section 7031(a). Further, the court granted summary adjudication in favor of Defendant as to the second cause of action asserted in its cross-complaint for recovery of compensation paid to unlicensed contractor.

Given the above, the court finds there is no probable validity of the mechanic’s lien or stop payment notice.

Defendant shall prepare an order that complies with Civil Code section 8490.

Defendant to give notice.