Judge: Nathan R. Scott, Case: Nicholson v. Bederman, Date: 2022-08-05 Tentative Ruling

Defendants Stacey Samuel Bederman and Eden C. Bederman’s motion to expunge is denied.  (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 405.30 et seq.; see also RGC Gaslamp, LLC v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co., Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 413, 423.)

Plaintiffs Thomas Q. Nicholson and T. Quinn Nicholson Ltd. met their burden to show the probable validity of a real property claim.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 405.30-405.32; Civ. Code, § 8461 [claim to foreclose mechanics lien warrants lis pendens]; see also Nicholson decl. ¶¶ 8, 11, 13-15, 18-19 & Exs. 4, 6, & 10.)

The authority cited in reply fails to show that once a work of improvement commences, a mechanics lien cannot include planning and engineering costs.  If anything, it suggests the court may enforce an overstated mechanics lien by reducing it to the proper amount.  (See Basic Modular Facilities v. Ehsanipour (2007) 70 Cal.App.4th 1480, 1485.)  Thus, it does not defeat the probable validity of plaintiff’s foreclosure of mechanic’s lien claim.

Defendants shall give notice.