Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCP00160, Date: 2024-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCP00160    Hearing Date: April 10, 2024    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           702 Crescent LLC v. Ortiz Consulting LLC

CASE NO.:                24SMCP00160

MOTION:                  Motion to Expunge Mech. Lien

HEARING DATE:   4/10/2024

Legal Standard

“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. [Citation.] The inquiry upon such motion is likewise limited to the ‘probable validity’ of the lien. [Citation.] However, unlike the grant of a motion to expunge the notice of lis pendens, the grant of 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. [Citation.]¿And, that judgment is a final, appealable judgment for which writ relief would ordinarily be denied. (Howard S. Wright Construction Co. v. Superior Court (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 314, 318.) 

Analysis

Petitioner 702 N. Crescent LLC moves to expunge a mechanics lien recorded against 702 N. Crescent Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210 (the “Subject Property”).  Civil Code section 3118 states that “[a]ny person who shall willfully include in his claim of lien labor, services, equipment, or materials not furnished for the property described in such claim shall thereby forfeit his lien.”

The petition provides the following verified facts. On January 25, 2024, Respondent Ortiz caused a Claim of Mechanic’s Lien to be recorded against the Crescent Property, Instrument No. 202400560412, in the Official Records of Los Angeles County, California (the “Ortiz Lien”). (Pet. ¶ 6.) The lien claimed $9,500,000.00 for cleaning services labor, services, equipment, or materials, paint labor, and business consulting labor furnished by Respondent for work done on the Crescent Property. (Id., Ex. A.) Petitioner verifies that it has no knowledge of or ever heard of Ortiz, and never hired Ortiz to provide labor, services, equipment, or furnish materials for work on the Crescent Property. (¶ 7.) Such services were never provided nor performed. (¶ 8.)

Based on the verified, undisputed facts, Respondent included claims for labor services, equipment and materials which were not furnished for the Subject Property. Therefore, Petitioner demonstrates that Respondent has forfeited any lien against the Subject Property.

Accordingly, the petition is GRANTED.