TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Nobel Benedict LLC’s Motion for an Order Releasing Property from Mechanics Lien is GRANTED.

Defendant Nobel Benedict LLC to give notice.

REASONING

Defendant Nobel Benedict LLC (“Defendant”) moves the Court for an order releasing the mechanic’s lien claim recorded on April 13, 2023, as Document No. 20230235874 as to the property located at 2650 Benedict Canyon Drive in Beverly Hills. Defendant contends the lien is invalid for lack of timely 20-day preliminary notice by Plaintiff’s assignor, Sabby Aquascapes Design Group, Inc. (“Sabby”), such that Plaintiff SoCal Lien Solutions, LLC (“Plaintiff”) will be unable to demonstrate the probable validity of the lien. Plaintiff argues that Civil Code section 8200, subdivision (e)(2), creates an exception to the requirement when there is a direct relationship with the owner, and Defendant made direct payments to Sabby.

In a motion to expunge a mechanic’s lien, “the 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.) “[T]he issue presented is limited to the ‘probable validity’ of the lien or stop notice.” (Ibid.) A “motion to remove a mechanic’s lien is essentially a judgment on the underlying foreclosure action that no lien exists—a judgment that, upon recordation, removes the lien from the public records.” (Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 314, 318.)

Civil Code section 8200, subdivision (c), states that compliance with preliminary notice requirements “is a necessary prerequisite to the validity of a lien claim,” and Civil Code section 8410 states that “[a] claimant may enforce a lien only if the claimant has given preliminary notice to the extent required . . . and made proof of notice.” Civil Code section 8200, subdivision (a), states that before recording lien claim, a lien claimant must give notice to the owner or reputed owner, the general contractor, and the construction lender, and Civil Code section 8204 provides that preliminary notice must be given not later than 20 days after the claimant first furnished work on a project, and a claimant who fails to give such timely notice is limited to a lien only as to “work performed within 20 days prior to the service of the preliminary notice.”

Defendant provides evidence that Sabby provided notice on March 14, 2023, and according to the notice, Sabby began work on the project on January 20, 2022, more than 20 days before the notice was served. (Mot., Khodorkovsky Decl. ¶ 7, Ex. C.) Plaintiff does not dispute this, instead arguing that Defendant had a direct relationship with Sabby, as it was issuing checks directly to Sabby, but Civil Code section 8200, subdivision (e)(2), provides that the only exceptions for giving timely preliminary notice are that “(1) [a] laborer is not required to give preliminary notice,” and “(2) [a] claimant with a direct contractual relationship with an owner or reputed owner is required to give preliminary notice only to the construction lender or reputed construction lender, if any.” It is irrelevant whether Defendant directly paid Sabby; it matters only that Defendant had “a direct contractual relationship” with Sabby, and there is no evidence that such a relationship existed. An account ledger provided by Plaintiff’s counsel, who lacks personal knowledge to authenticate the ledger, does not constitute evidence of a contractual relationship between Defendant and Sabby. Thus, the Court finds that Sabby failed to provide the required 20-day notice, such that Plaintiff cannot demonstrate the probable validity of its lien. Accordingly, Defendant Nobel Benedict LLC’s Motion for an Order Releasing Property from Mechanics Lien is GRANTED.