This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/12/2021 at 01:27:23 (UTC).

28210/28216 DOROTHY, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS WEST MISSION PLASTERING, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Case Summary

On 09/21/2020 28210/28216 DOROTHY, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY filed an Other lawsuit against WEST MISSION PLASTERING, INC , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Disposed - Other Disposed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******3026

  • Filing Date:

    09/21/2020

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Petitioner

28210/28216 DOROTHY LLC A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Respondent

WEST MISSION PLASTERING INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

ARSHT SAMUEL J.

 

Court Documents

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

10/4/2021: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Notice of Continuance - Notice of Continuance

9/20/2021: Notice of Continuance - Notice of Continuance

Memorandum of Costs (Summary) - Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

5/13/2021: Memorandum of Costs (Summary) - Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Ruling on Petition to Release Property from Mechanic's Lien

2/4/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Ruling on Petition to Release Property from Mechanic's Lien

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Release Property - Mechanic's...)

2/2/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Release Property - Mechanic's...)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Petition

1/14/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Petition

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

1/8/2021: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Petition

12/1/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Petition

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Release Property - Mechanic's...)

12/2/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Petition Petition to Release Property - Mechanic's...)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Petition

12/2/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance of Hearing on Petition

Notice of Lodging (name extension) - Notice of Lodging Certified Mechanic's Lien in Support of Petition to Release Property from Mechanics Lien (CCP 8484)

11/4/2020: Notice of Lodging (name extension) - Notice of Lodging Certified Mechanic's Lien in Support of Petition to Release Property from Mechanics Lien (CCP 8484)

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

11/6/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

9/22/2020: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

Declaration of Mailing - Declaration of Mailing

9/22/2020: Declaration of Mailing - Declaration of Mailing

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

9/21/2020: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

9/21/2020: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

9/21/2020: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

9/21/2020: Notice of Hearing on Petition - Notice of Hearing on Petition

11 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/05/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Attorney Fees scheduled for 10/06/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/05/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/04/2021
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by 28210/28216 Dorothy, LLC, a California limited liability company on 09/21/2020, entered Request for Dismissal without prejudice filed by 28210/28216 Dorothy, LLC, a California limited liability company as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Attorney Fees scheduled for 10/06/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2021
  • DocketNotice of Continuance; Filed by: 28210/28216 Dorothy, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2021
  • DocketPursuant to the request of plaintiff, Hearing on Motion for Attorney Fees scheduled for 09/20/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Held - Continued was rescheduled to 10/06/2021 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Attorney Fees scheduled for 09/20/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2021
  • DocketMemorandum of Costs (Summary); Filed by: 28210/28216 Dorothy, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner); As to: West Mission Plastering, Inc., a California corporation (Respondent); Total Costs: 586.75

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2021
  • DocketMotion for Attorney Fees; Filed by: 28210/28216 Dorothy, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2021
  • DocketOrder [Proposed] on Petition to Release Property from Mechanic's Lien; Signed and Filed by: 28210/28216 Dorothy, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner); As to: West Mission Plastering, Inc., a California corporation (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
14 More Docket Entries
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Petition Petition to Release Property - Mechanic's Lien scheduled for 01/25/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Rescheduled by Court was rescheduled to 11/12/2020 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: 28210/28216 Dorothy, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/22/2020
  • DocketDeclaration of Mailing; Filed by: 28210/28216 Dorothy, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: 28210/28216 Dorothy, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner); As to: West Mission Plastering, Inc., a California corporation (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketPetition to Release Property - Mechanic's Lien; Filed by: 28210/28216 Dorothy, LLC, a California limited liability company (Petitioner); As to: West Mission Plastering, Inc., a California corporation (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Release Property - Mechanic's Lien scheduled for 01/25/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/21/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b"

Case Number: 20STCP03026 Hearing Date: September 20, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION\r\nFOR ORDER AWARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner\r\n28210/28616 Dorothy, LLC

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

\r\n\r\n

(CCP §§ 1032, 1033.5; Civ. Code § 8488)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Petitioner 28210/28616 Dorothy, LLC’s\r\nMotion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount of $6,879.00. Costs of $586.75 are also GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of September\r\n15, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof September 15, 2021 [ ]\r\nLate [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On September 21, 2020, Petitioner 28210/28216 Dorothy,\r\nLLC (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to release property from mechanic’s lien\r\nagainst Respondent West Mission Plastering, Inc. (“Respondent”), which was\r\ninitially set for hearing for November 12, 2020. The petition sought to release\r\nreal property commonly known as 28210 and 28216 Dorothy Drive, Agoura Hills, CA\r\n91301 (the “Subject Property”), from a mechanic’s lien filed on April 28, 2020\r\nby Respondent. (Pet., ¶¶ 1, 3.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On November 6, 2020, the Court, on its own motion,\r\ncontinued the hearing to December 2, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. and ordered Petitioner\r\nto give notice. (11/6/20 Notice re Continuance of Hearing and Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On December 2, 2020, the Court found Petitioner had\r\nsatisfied the service requirements of Civil Code section 8486 and the petition\r\nrequirements of Civil Code sections 8484 and 8482. (12/2/20 Minute Order.) The\r\nCourt noted that, although it was inclined to grant the petition, Petitioner\r\nhad not filed a proof of service demonstrating Respondent was given notice of\r\nthe November 6th continuance. (Id.) The hearing was continued\r\nand Petitioner was ordered to give proper notice. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The petition was granted on February 2 and Petitioner was\r\ndirected to file a proposed order. (2/4/21 Notice of Ruling.) The Court signed\r\nPetitioner’s proposed order on March 23, 2021. (3/23/21 Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On May 13, 2021, Petitioner filed\r\nthe instant Motion for Order Awarding Attorney’s Fees (the “Motion”). No\r\nopposition was filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A prevailing party is entitled to recover costs as a matter of\r\nright. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1032, subd.\r\n(a)(4).) Attorney’s fees may be recovered as costs when authorized by contract,\r\nstatute, or law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1033.5, subd. (a)(10).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“A notice of motion to claim\r\nattorney's fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in\r\nthe trial court . . . must be served and filed within the time for filing a\r\nnotice of appeal under . . . rules 8.822 and 8.823 in a limited civil case.” (Cal.\r\nRules of Court, rule 3.1702, subd. (b)(1).) In a limited civil case, a notice\r\nof appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of 30 days after service of a\r\ndocument entitled “Notice of Entry” of judgment or 90 days after the entry of\r\njudgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.822, subd. (a)(1).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The fee\r\nsetting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar” method,\r\ni.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable\r\nhourly rate. A computation of time spent\r\non a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a\r\ndetermination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award. The lodestar figure may then be adjusted,\r\nbased on factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair\r\nmarket value for the legal services provided. \r\n(Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20\r\nCal.3d 25, 49.) Such an approach anchors\r\nthe trial court’s analysis to an objective determination of the value of the\r\nattorney’s services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary. (Id.,\r\nat p. 48, fn. 23.) After the trial court\r\nhas performed the lodestar calculations, it shall consider whether the total\r\naward so calculated under all of the circumstances of the case is more than a\r\nreasonable amount and, if so, shall reduce the section 1717 award so that it is\r\na reasonable figure. (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th\r\n1084, 1095-1096.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

As\r\nexplained in Graciano v. Robinson Ford\r\nSales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

“[T]he lodestar is the basic fee for comparable legal services in the\r\ncommunity; it may be adjusted by the court based on factors including, as\r\nrelevant herein, (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2)\r\nthe skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of\r\nthe litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent\r\nnature of the fee award. [Citation.] The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a\r\nfee at the fair market value for the particular action. In effect, the court\r\ndetermines, retrospectively, whether the litigation involved a contingent risk\r\nor required extraordinary legal skill justifying augmentation of the unadorned\r\nlodestar in order to approximate the fair market rate for such services. . . .\r\nThis approach anchors the trial court's analysis to an objective determination\r\nof the value of the attorney's services, ensuring that the amount awarded is\r\nnot arbitrary.” [Internal citations and internal quotation marks omitted.]

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc.\r\n(2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140.) “It is well established that the determination of\r\nwhat constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the\r\ntrial court, whose decision cannot be reversed in the absence of an abuse of\r\ndiscretion. [Citations.] The value of\r\nlegal services performed in a case is a matter in which the trial court has its\r\nown expertise. . . . The trial court makes its determination after\r\nconsideration of a number of factors, including the nature of the litigation,\r\nits difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in its handling, the\r\nskill employed, the attention given, the success or failure, and other\r\ncircumstances in the case. \r\n[Citations.]” (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d\r\n618, 623-624.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

No\r\nspecific findings reflecting the court’s calculations are required. The record need only show that the attorney\r\nfees were awarded according to the “lodestar” or “touchstone” approach. The court’s focus in evaluating the facts\r\nshould be to provide a fee award reasonably designed to completely compensate\r\nattorneys for the services provided. The\r\nstarting point for this determination is the attorney’s time records. (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif.\r\nState Univ. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 395-397 [verified time\r\nrecords entitled to credence absent clear indication they are erroneous].) However, California case law permits fee\r\nawards in the absence of detailed time sheets. (Sommers v. Erb (1992) 2\r\nCal.App.4th 1644, 1651; Dunk v. Ford\r\nMotor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1810; Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor America (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 99,\r\n103.) An experienced trial judge is in a\r\nposition to assess the value of the professional services rendered in his or\r\nher court. (Id.; Serrano v. Priest\r\n(1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49; Wershba v. Apple\r\nComputer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 255.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nDiscussion\r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Petitioner’s Motion is timely as no “notice of entry of\r\njudgment” was served and the Motion was filed within 90 days of the Court’s\r\nMarch 23 order. It is also undisputed that is the prevailing party as a release\r\norder was granted in its favor.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Civil Code section 8488,\r\nsubdivision (c), allows for the prevailing party in a petition to release\r\nproperty from a mechanic’s lien to recover its reasonable attorney’s fees.\r\nThus, Petitioner is entitled to recover its attorney’s fees.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Petitioner seeks fees of\r\n$9,735.00. (Mot., p. 6, Brilliant Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. A.) Petitioner’s request is\r\nbased on fees of $8,272.50 for time billed from August 5, 2020 to February 2,\r\n2021 at a rate of between $325.00-$450.00 per hour for attorney time and $85.00\r\nper hour for legal assistant time. (Id.) Having examined and added up\r\nevery individual entry, however, the Court notes that the invoices actually\r\ntotal $8,522.00.50 based on 28.7 hours billed hours. (See id.)\r\nPetitioner’s request also includes $1,462.50 based on 4.5 hours of attorney\r\ntime in connection with this Motion. (Id.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court finds\r\nPetitioner’s request to be excessive. First, Petitioner incurred $4,722.00\r\nbased on 14.8 hours spent researching the mechanic’s lien statutes, drafting a\r\ndemand for the release of mechanic’s lien, and drafting and renewing the\r\nPetition and supporting documents. (Id.) This is excessive for this\r\nrelatively simple, six-paragraph Petition. The Court finds $2,925.50, based on\r\n8.8 hours of attorney time, to be reasonable.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

There are also some\r\nexcessive charges on the invoices. For instance, after the December 2, 2020\r\nhearing, Petitioner charged a total of 1.1 hours to draft a notice of ruling,\r\nreview it, and file with the Court. This is excessive. The Court finds 0.4\r\nhours to be reasonable. There are also two separate 0.3 entries for the review\r\nof the Court’s December 2 tentative ruling, one of which appears to be\r\nduplicative.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Having\r\nreviewed the attached billing records and made appropriate reductions for\r\nduplicative and excessive entries, the Court finds $6,879.00 based on 22.4\r\nhours to be reasonable in this unopposed case. Petitioner also seeks costs of $586.75 in costs which the\r\nCourt finds to be reasonable.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

IV. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioner\r\n28210/28616 Dorothy, LLC’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is GRANTED in the amount\r\nof $6,879.00.\r\nCosts of $586.75 are also GRANTED.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

"

Case Number: 20STCP03026    Hearing Date: February 02, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE:    Tue., February 2, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME 28210/28216 Dorothy LLC, v. West Mission Plastering, Inc.

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP03026 PET. FILED: 09-21-20

NOTICE:   OK

PROCEEDINGS    PETITION TO RELEASE PROPERTY FROM MECHANIC’S LIEN

MOVING PARTY:   Petitioner 28210/28216 Dorothy, LLC

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION FOR RELEASE OF PROPERTY FROM LIEN

(Civ. Code § 8480 et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petition to Release Property from Mechanic’s Lien is GRANTED.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK    

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK    

[X] At least 15 Days Lapsed (Civ. Code § 8486(b)) OK

[X] Service Same as Summons (Civ. Code § 8486(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of January 29, 2021 [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of January 29, 2021 [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background & Discussion

On September 21, 2020, Petitioner 28210/28216 Dorothy, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Release Property from Mechanic’s Lien (the “Petition”) against Respondent West Mission Plastering, Inc. (“Respondent”), which was initially set for hearing for November 12, 2020. The Petition seeks to release real property commonly known as 28210 and 28216 Dorothy Drive, Agoura Hills, CA 91301 (the “Subject Property”), from a mechanic’s lien filed on April 28, 2020 by Respondent. (Pet., ¶¶ 1, 3.)

On November 6, 2020, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing to December 2, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. and ordered Petitioner to give notice. (11/6/20 Notice re Continuance of Hearing and Order.)

On December 2, 2020, the Court found Petitioner had satisfied the service requirements of Civil Code section 8486 and the Petition requirements of Civil Code sections 8484 and 8482. (12/2/20 Minute Order.) The Court noted that, although it was inclined to grant the Petition, Petitioner had not filed a proof of service demonstrating Respondent was given notice of the November 6th continuance. (Id.) The hearing was continued and Petitioner was ordered to give proper notice. (Id.)

Petitioner filed a proof of service demonstrating it gave Respondent notice of the continued hearing on January 13, 2021 via regular mail. (1/14/21 Proof of Service.)

As Petitioner has now addressed the Court’s concerns regarding notice and having previously found all other requirements were met, the Petition is GRANTED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition to Release Property from Mechanic’s Lien is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STCP03026    Hearing Date: December 02, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., December 2, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: 28210/28216 Dorothy LLC, v. West Mission Plastering, Inc.

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP03026 PET. FILED: 09-21-20

NOTICE: NO (continued hearing)

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO RELEASE PROPERTY FROM MECHANIC’S LIEN

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner 28210/28216 Dorothy, LLC

RESP. PARTY: None

PETITION FOR RELEASE OF PROPERTY FROM LIEN

(Civ. Code § 8480 et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Petition to Release Property from Mechanic’s Lien is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, before the hearing, Petitioner files a proof of service demonstrating it gave Respondent notice of the November 6th continuance and of this hearing. Otherwise, the matter will be CONTINUED TO JAN 12, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. If continued, Petitioner must file a proof of service demonstrating Respondent was given proper notice at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing. Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

RELIEF SOUGHT:

[X] Release of Mechanic’s Lien - Per CC § 8480.

[ ] Attorneys’ Fees and Costs - Per CC § 8488(c).

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] At least 15 Days Lapsed (Civ. Code § 8486(b)) OK

[X] Service Same as Summons (Civ. Code § 8486(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of November 30, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of November 30, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On September 21, 2020, Petitioner 28210/28216 Dorothy, LLC (“Petitioner”) filed the instant Petition to Release Property from Mechanic’s Lien (the “Petition”) against Respondent West Mission Plastering, Inc. (“Respondent”), which was initially set for hearing for November 12, 2020. The Petition seeks to release real property commonly known as 28210 and 28216 Dorothy Drive, Agoura Hills, CA 91301 (the “Subject Property”), from a mechanic’s lien filed on April 28, 2020 by Respondent. (Pet., ¶¶ 1, 3.)

On November 6, 2020, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing to December 2, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. and ordered Petitioner to give notice. (11/6/20 Notice re Continuance of Hearing and Order.)

To date, Petitioner has not filed a proof of service demonstrating it gave Respondent notice of the November 6th continuance and December 2nd hearing, and Respondent has not filed an opposition.

  1. Legal Standard

After a mechanic’s lien has been recorded, “[t]he 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).) A claimant must commence an action to enforce a lien within 90 days of recording the lien. (Civ. Code, § 8460, subd. (a).) Section 8460 further provides that “[i]f 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).) Section 8460 also provides that the 90-day time limit to commence an action to enforce a lien does not apply if there was an agreement to extend credit and a notice of that fact was recorded within 90 days after recordation of the claim of lien or 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. (Civ. Code, § 8460, subd. (b).)

  1. Discussion

A. Service Requirement

The petitioner shall serve a copy of the petition and a notice of hearing on the claimant at least 15 days before the hearing. Service shall be made in the same manner as service of summons, or by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the claimant as provided in Section 8108.” (Civ. Code § 8486, subd. (b).) The Petitioner bears the burden of proving he complied with service and date for hearing requirements. (Civ. Code. § 8488, subd. (a).)

Petitioner filed a proof of service demonstrating Respondent’s registered agent was personally served with the Petition and supporting documents on September 30, 2020. (10/5/20 Proof of Service.) Thus, the service requirements of Section 8486 are satisfied.

B. Petition Requirements

Civil Code section 8484 requires that the petition for release order be verified by the petitioner and allege 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.

(c) The book and page or series number of the place in the official records where 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.

A property owner may not petition for a release order until he or she gives the claimant notice demanding that the claimant execute and record a release of lien claim at least ten days before filing the petition. (Civ. Code, § 8482.)

Petitioner filed a certified copy of the claim of lien. (Pet., ¶ 3, Exh. A), and has properly alleged the date of recordation of the claim of lien, the county in which the lien is recorded, the legal description of the Subject Property, and has alleged no extension of credit has been granted (id., at ¶¶ 1, 3, 4.) Petitioner has also complied with the pre-filing notice and demand requirement. (Id. at ¶ 6, Exh. B.) Petitioner timely served a written demand to remove the lien on August 7, 2020 via certified mail. (Id.) This Petition was filed on November 21, 2020, more than 10 days after the demand was served on Respondent. There is no indication that an action to enforce this lien has been commenced and the 90-day time period to commence the action was expired. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Petitioner also alleged that Respondent has not filed for bankruptcy and that no other restraint exists to prevent it from filing to foreclose on the lien. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

Thus, the Court finds Petitioner has satisfied the requirements of Sections 8484 and 8482. Although the Court is inclined to grant the Petition, Petitioner did not give respondent notice of the November 6th continuance. In the interest of judicial economy, however, the Petition is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, before the hearing, Petitioner files a proof of service demonstrating Respondent was given proper notice of this hearing. Otherwise, the Petition will be CONTINUED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, the Petition to Release Property from Mechanic’s Lien is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, before the hearing, Petitioner files a proof of service demonstrating it gave Respondent notice of the November 6th continuance and of this hearing. Otherwise, the matter will be CONTINUED TO JAN 12, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. If continued, Petitioner must file a proof of service demonstrating Respondent was given proper notice at least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing. Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer ARSHT SAMUEL J.