Judge Michael P. Linfield, Case Number: 23STCV06887, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV06887, Date: 2023-08-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV06887 Hearing Date: August 31, 2023 Dept: 34

SUBJECT: Petition for Order Releasing Property from Claim of Mechanics Lien

Moving Party: Petitioner Cold Pressed Agoura, LLC

Resp. Party: None

It is DECLARED AND ADJUDGED that the mechanic’s lien described below is expired and unenforceable, that the property is released from the claim of lien, and that the lien no longer exists.

California Mechanic’s Lien, recorded on June 23, 2022 in the Official Records of the Recorder’s Office of Los Angeles County, California, Instrument #20220659736, Page 004, located at 5811 Kanan Road, Agoura Hills, CA 91301 (Parcels 1, 3, and 4 of Parcel Map No. 7982, in the City of Agoura Hills, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 108 Pages 75, 76, and 77 of Parcel Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County).

Attorney’s fees are AWARDED in favor of Petitioner and against Respondent in the amount of $790.00.

BACKGROUND:

On March 29, 2023, Petitioner Cold Pressed Agoura, LLC filed its Petition for Order Releasing Property from Claim of Mechanics [sic] Lien against Respondent United Drywall System.

On May 30, 2023, Petitioner filed its Amended Petition.

On July 31, 2023, Petitioner filed its Notice of Hearing on Petition, which included a Proof of Service dated the same day. Petitioner concurrently filed: (1) Declaration of Natalia Minassian; and (2) Proposed Order.

No opposition or other response has been filed to the Petition or the Amended Petition.

ANALYSIS:

I. Legal Standard

“Our state Constitution provides: ‘Mechanics, persons furnishing materials, artisans, and laborers of every class, shall have a lien upon the property upon which they have bestowed labor or furnished material for the value of such labor done and material furnished; and the Legislature shall provide, by law, for the speedy and efficient enforcement of such liens.’ (Cal. Const., art. XIV, § 3.) As this court has said, ‘The mechanic’s lien is the only creditors' remedy stemming from constitutional command and our courts ‘have uniformly classified the mechanics’ lien laws as remedial legislation, to be liberally construed for the protection of laborers and materialmen.’ [Citation.]’ (Hutnick v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 456, 462 [253 Cal. Rptr. 236, 763 P.2d 1326].) ‘[S]tate policy strongly supports the preservation of laws which give the laborer and materialman security for their claims.’ (Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal. 3d 803, 827 [132 Cal. Rptr. 477, 553 P.2d 637].)” (Wm. R. Clarke Corp. v. Safeco Ins. Co. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 882, 888–89.)

“Subject to Section 8442, a lien attaches to the work of improvement and to the real property on which the work of improvement is situated, including as much space about the work of improvement as is required for the convenient use and occupation of the work of improvement.” (Civ. Code, § 8440.)

“The claimant shall commence an action to enforce a lien within 90 days after recordation of the claim of lien. If the claimant does not commence an action to enforce the lien within that time, the claim of lien expires and is unenforceable.” (Civ. Code, § 8460, subd. (a).)

“Subdivision (a) does not apply if the claimant and owner agree to extend credit, and notice of the fact and terms of the extension of credit is recorded (1) within 90 days after recordation of the claim of lien or (2) more than 90 days after recordation of the claim of lien but before a purchaser or encumbrancer for value and in good faith acquires rights in the property. In that event the claimant shall commence an action to enforce the lien within 90 days after the expiration of the credit, but in no case later than one year after completion of the work of improvement. If the claimant does not commence an action to enforce the lien within that time, the claim of lien expires and is unenforceable.” (Civ. Code, § 8460, subd. (b).)

“The owner of property or the owner of any interest in property subject to a claim of lien may petition the court for an order to release the property from the claim of lien if the claimant has not commenced an action to enforce the lien within the time provided in Section 8460.” (Civ. Code, § 8480, subd. (a).)

“An owner of property may not petition the court for a release order under this article unless at least 10 days before filing the petition the owner gives the claimant notice demanding that the claimant execute and record a release of the claim of lien. The notice shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 8100) of Title 1, and shall state the grounds for the demand.” (Civ. Code, § 8482.)

“A petition for a release order shall be verified and shall allege all of the following:

(a) “The date of recordation of the claim of lien. A certified copy of the claim of lien shall be attached to the petition.

(b) “The county in which the claim of lien is recorded.

(d) “The legal description of the property subject to the claim of lien.

(e) “Whether an extension of credit has been granted under Section 8460, if so to what date, and that the time for commencement of an action to enforce the lien has expired.

(f) “That the owner has given the claimant notice under Section 8482 demanding that the claimant execute and record a release of the lien and that the claimant is unable or unwilling to do so or cannot with reasonable diligence be found.

(g) “Whether an action to enforce the lien is pending.

(h) “Whether the owner of the property or interest in the property has filed for relief in bankruptcy or there is another restraint that prevents the claimant from commencing an action to enforce the lien.”

(Civ. Code, § 8484.)

“At the hearing both (1) the petition and (2) the issue of compliance with the service and date for hearing requirements of this article are deemed controverted by the claimant. The petitioner has the initial burden of producing evidence on those matters. The petitioner has the burden of proof as to the issue of compliance with the service and date for hearing requirements of this article. The claimant has the burden of proof as to the validity of the lien.” (Civ. Code, § 8488, subd. (a).)

“A court order dismissing a cause of action to enforce a lien or releasing property from a claim of lien, or a judgment that no lien exists, shall include all of the following information: (1) The date of recordation of the claim of lien. (2) The county in which the claim of lien is recorded. (3) The book and page or series number of the place in the official records where the claim of lien is recorded. (4) The legal description of the property.” (Civ. Code, § 8490, subd. (a).)

“If judgment is in favor of the petitioner, the court shall order the property released from the claim of lien.” (Civ. Code, § 8488, subd. (b).)

“The prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.” (Civ. Code, § 8488, subd. (c).)

II. Discussion

A. The Mechanic’s Lien

Petitioner petitions the Court to: (1) declare that Respondent’s mechanic’s lien has expired and is unenforceable; (2) release the property from the claim of lien that Respondent recorded; and (3) award Petitioner reasonable attorney’s fees incurred. (Amended Petition, p. 2:16–23.)

Respondent has not opposed or otherwise responded to the Petition or the Amended Petition.

The Court finds that all requirements for such a petition have been met.

(1) Petitioner may file this Amended Petition because Petitioner is the owner of the property upon which a mechanic’s lien has been placed. (Amended Petition, Exh. 2, p. 2; Civ. Code, § 8480, subd. (a).)

(2) On January 13, 2023, Petitioner gave Respondent notice demanding that Respondent execute and record a release of the claim of lien. (Decl. Minassian, Exh. 3, p. 1.) Further, on July 31, 2023, Petitioner filed Notice of the Hearing on Petition. These are sufficient to meet the statutory notice requirement. (Civ. Code, § 8482.)

(3) The Amended Petition is verified and includes: (1) the date of recordation of the claim of lien (June 23, 2022); (2) a certified copy of the claim of lien (attached to the Amended Petition); (3) the county in which the claim of lien is recorded (Los Angeles County); (4) the book and page or series number of the place in the official records where the claim of lien is recorded (Instrument #20220659736, Page 004); (5) the legal description of the property subject to the claim of lien (attached to the Amended Petition); (6) whether an extension of credit has been granted under Section 8460 (there has not); (7) that Petitioner has given Respondent the appropriate notice under Section 8482 (Petitioner has); (8) whether an action to enforce the lien is pending (there is not); and (9) whether Petitioner has filed for relief in bankruptcy or there is another restraint that prevents Petitioner from commencing an action to enforce the lien (Petitioner has not and there is no other restraint). (Amended Petition, ¶¶ 1–7 and p. 3; Civ. Code, § 8484.)

The Court has not been presented with any evidence that would indicate Respondent commenced an action to enforce the mechanic’s lien at issue within 90 days after recordation of the claim of lien, nor is there any evidence that Petitioner and Respondent agreed to extend credit. (Civ. Code, § 8460, subds. (a), (b).) Rather, the evidence presented supports a finding that no such action has been commenced and that Petitioner and Respondent did not agree to extend credit.

Petitioner has met its initial burden of proof, and Respondent has not met its subsequent burden of proof. (Civ. Code, § 8488, subd. (a).)

Accordingly, the Court DECLARES AND ADJUDGES that the mechanic’s lien described below is expired and unenforceable, that the property is released from the claim of lien, and that the lien no longer exists. (Civ. Code, §§ 8460, subd. (a), 8488, subd. (b.), and 8490, subd. (a).)

B. Attorney’s Fees

Petitioner is the prevailing party in this matter, and thus Petitioner is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees. (Civ. Code, § 8488, subd. (c).)

Petitioner’s Counsel declares that they have incurred $2,370.00 in attorney’s fees, based on six hours of work at the rate of $395.00 per hour. (Decl. Minassian, ¶ 6.)

The Court finds that the hourly rate is reasonable but the number of hours is not. The Amended Petition is two pages long, and its contents strictly follow the items listed in the relevant statutory sections. No argument was required, nor was an opposition to reply to. Petitioner’s Counsel has not provided the Court with an itemized bill that would explain why six hours were necessary here.

The Court AWARDS attorney’s fees in favor of Petitioner and against Respondent in the amount of $790.00, for two hours of work at the rate of $395.00 per hour.

III. Conclusion

It is DECLARED AND ADJUDGED that the mechanic’s lien described below is expired and unenforceable, that the property is released from the claim of lien, and that the lien no longer exists.

Attorney’s fees are AWARDED in favor of Petitioner and against Respondent in the amount of $790.00.