This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/16/2021 at 07:02:53 (UTC).

THEODORE VAUGHAN, ET AL. VS PRECIOSO CONSTRUCTION

Case Summary

On 02/27/2020 THEODORE VAUGHAN filed an Other lawsuit against PRECIOSO CONSTRUCTION. 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:

    *******0901

  • Filing Date:

    02/27/2020

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Other Disposed

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Petitioners

VAUGHAN THEODORE

VAUGHAN ALEXANDRA

Respondent

PRECIOSO CONSTRUCTION AKA PRECIOSO INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorney

ADAMS ANDREW

Respondent Attorney

LANDVER ALINA

 

Court Documents

Notice of Rejection - Post Judgment - Notice of Rejection - Post Judgment

5/12/2021: Notice of Rejection - Post Judgment - Notice of Rejection - Post Judgment

Order (name extension) - Order (Proposed) Releasing Lien

3/30/2021: Order (name extension) - Order (Proposed) Releasing Lien

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

2/17/2021: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application AN EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY AND

3/3/2021: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application AN EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE A SUR-REPLY AND

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application AN EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR A...)

3/4/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application AN EX-PARTE APPLICATION FOR A...)

Objection (name extension) - Objection TO NEW EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH PETITONERS REPLY, HERE COMBINED WITH A SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION BY RESPONDENT PRECIOSO INC. TO MOTION BY PETITIONERS THEODORE VAUG

3/9/2021: Objection (name extension) - Objection TO NEW EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH PETITONERS REPLY, HERE COMBINED WITH A SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION BY RESPONDENT PRECIOSO INC. TO MOTION BY PETITIONERS THEODORE VAUG

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurr...)

3/11/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurr...)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)

3/12/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 03/12/2021

3/12/2021: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 03/12/2021

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 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

Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Strike

12/29/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition to Motion to Strike

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

12/29/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

Response (name extension) - Response Petitioners' Response to Verified Answer

12/29/2020: Response (name extension) - Response Petitioners' Response to Verified Answer

Answer - Answer

12/15/2020: Answer - Answer

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 12/10/2020

12/10/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 12/10/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)

12/10/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)

Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

12/2/2020: Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint) - Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint)

38 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/13/2021
  • DocketAbstract - Request; Issued by: Theodore Vaughan (Petitioner)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2021
  • DocketNotice of Rejection - Post Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/30/2021
  • DocketOrder (Proposed) Releasing Lien; Signed and Filed by: Theodore Vaughan (Petitioner); Alexandra Vaughan (Petitioner); As to: Precioso Construction (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Ruling on Submitted Matter)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/12/2021
  • DocketCertificate of Mailing for (Ruling on Submitted Matter) of 03/12/2021; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurr...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Strike (not anti-SLAPP) - without Demurrer scheduled for 03/11/2021 at 11:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 03/11/2021; Result Type to Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2021
  • DocketHearing on Petition to Release Property-Mechanic's Lien scheduled for 03/11/2021 at 11:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 03/11/2021; Result Type to Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion for Attorney Fees scheduled for 03/11/2021 at 11:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 03/11/2021; Result Type to Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2021
  • DocketObjection TO NEW EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WITH PETITONERS? REPLY, HERE COMBINED WITH A SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION BY RESPONDENT PRECIOSO INC. TO MOTION BY PETITIONERS THEODORE VAUGHAN AND ALEXANDRA VAUGHN FOR ATTORNEYS FEES PER CIVIL CODE 8488(c); ALINA LANDVER; Filed by: Precioso Construction (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
55 More Docket Entries
  • 07/02/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Petition Petition to Release Property - Mechanic's Lien scheduled for 07/02/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion was rescheduled to 09/17/2020 09:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Theodore Vaughan (Petitioner); Alexandra Vaughan (Petitioner); As to: Precioso Construction (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Theodore Vaughan (Petitioner); As to: Precioso Construction (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/01/2020
  • DocketProof of Service by Mail; Filed by: Theodore Vaughan (Petitioner); Alexandra Vaughan (Petitioner); As to: Precioso Construction (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketHearing on Petition Petition to Release Property - Mechanic's Lien scheduled for 07/02/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/04/2020
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 25 Spring Street Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2020
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2020
  • DocketNotice of Hearing on Petition; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/27/2020
  • DocketPetition to Release Property - Mechanic's Lien; Filed by: Andrew Adams (Attorney); Theodore Vaughan (Petitioner); Alexandra Vaughan (Petitioner); As to: Theodore Vaughan (Petitioner); Alexandra Vaughan (Petitioner); Precioso Construction (Respondent)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCP00901    Hearing Date: March 11, 2021    Dept: 25

CASE NAME: Vaughan, et al. v. Precioso Construction PET. FILED: 02-27-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP00901

NOTICE:   OK

PROCEEDINGS    (1) RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO STRIKE

MOVING PARTY:   Respondent Precioso Construction

RESP. PARTY: Petitioners Theodore Vaughan and Alexandria Vaughan  

(2) PETITION TO RELEASE PROPERTY – MECHANIC’S LIEN

(3) PETITIONERS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

MOVING PARTY:   Petitioners Theodore Vaughan and Alexandria Vaughan

RESP. PARTY: Respondent Precioso Construction  

PETITION TO RELEASE MECHANIC’S LIEN

(Civ. Code § 8480, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

(1) Respondent Precioso Construction’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

    (2) The Petition to Release Petitioners’ Property from Respondent’s Mechanic’s Lien is 

GRANTED.

(3) Petitioners’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees is also GRANTED. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner attorney’s fees and costs of $7,003.46.

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 § 486(b)) OK

[X] Correct Manner of Service (Civ. Code § 8486(b)) OK

Motion to Strike

OPPOSITION: Filed on December 29, 2020 [   ] Late [   ] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 9, 2021 [   ] Late [X] None

Petition to Release Property

OPPOSITION: None filed as of March 9, 2021 [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of March 9, 2021 [   ] Late [X] None

Motion to Attorney’s Fees

OPPOSITION: Filed on November 17, 2020 [   ] Late [   ] None

REPLY: Filed on November 23, 2020 [   ] Late [   ] None

SUR-REPLY: Filed on March 9, 2021 [   ] Late [   ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On February 27, 2020, Petitioners Theodore Vaughan and Alexandria Vaughan (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed the instant Petition to Release Property – Mechanic’s Lien (the “Petition”) against Respondent Precioso Construction (“Respondent”) seeking an order to release a mechanic’s lien filed on November 27, 2019, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.

An initial hearing on the Petition was held on July 2, 2020. At that time, the Court found Petitioners satisfied the pre-filing demand requirements of Civil Code section 8482 and the petition requirements of Civil Code section 8484. (7/2/20 Minute Order.) However, it also noted several deficiencies with Petitioners’ proof of service. (Id.) The Court ordered Petitioners to file an amended proof of service and warned that failure to do so could result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied. (Id.)

On July 17, 2020, instead of filing amended proofs of service, Petitioners’ counsel filed a supplemental declaration. Also on July 17, Petitioners filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees. Respondent filed an Opposition to the Motion for Attorney’s Fees on November 17, 2020, Petitioners filed a Reply on November 23, 2020, and Respondent filed an Objection and Sur-Reply on March 9, 2021.

Respondent filed a Motion for Order Striking the Declaration of Andrew Adams on September 11, 2020. Petitioners filed an Opposition to the Motion to Strike on December 29, 2020.

At the September 17, 2020 continued hearing, the Court found Petitioners had not filed amended proofs of service as requested and continued the hearing once more. (9/17/20 Minute Order.) Petitioners filed amended proofs of service on September 17, 2020. Respondent filed a Notice of Failure to Cure and of Violation of Court Order on November 4, 2020, but no opposition on the merits.

Following oral argument from the parties at the November 5th continued hearing on the Petition, the Court took the matter under submission. (11/5/20 Minute Order.)

On December 2, the Motion for Attorney’s Fees came up for hearing. The Court continued the matter to allow for the resolution of the Petition, which was still under submission at that time. (12/2/20 Minute Order.)

In its ruling on the submitted matter on December 10, 2020, the Court continued the hearing to January 12, 2020 so the Petition could be resolved at the same time as Respondent’s Motion to Strike. (12/10/21 Minute Order.)

Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition on December 15, 2020, and Petitioners filed a Response on December 29.

  1. Motion to Strike

A. Legal Standard

California law authorizes a party’s motion to strike matter from an opposing party’s pleading if it is irrelevant, false, or improper. (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 435; 436, subd. (a).) Motions may also target pleadings or parts of pleadings that are not filed or drawn in conformity with applicable laws, rules, or orders. (Code Civ. Proc. § 436, subd. (b).) However, motions to strike in limited jurisdiction courts may only challenge pleadings on the basis that “the damages or relief sought are not supported by the allegations of the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 92, subd. (d).) The Code of Civil Procedure also authorizes the Court to act on its own initiative to strike matters, empowering the Court to enter orders striking matter “at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 436.)

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure section 435.5 requires that “[b]efore filing a motion to strike pursuant to this chapter, the moving party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that resolves the objections to be raised in the motion to strike.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 435.5, subd. (a).)

B. Discussion

Respondent seeks to strike the declaration of Petitioners’ counsel, Andrew F. Adams, filed on July 17, 2020. (Mot., p. 3:2-5.) Respondent argues the declaration should be stricken because it was “not filed in conformity with the Court’s Order of July 2, 2020 and, moreover, establishes that service of the Petition was no service at all.” (Id.)

However, motions to strike may only target pleadings. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 435, subd. (a)(2); 436.) A “pleading” for purposes of a motion to strike means a demurrer, answer, complaint, or cross-complaint. (Id.) In addition, as noted above, motions to strike in limited jurisdiction courts may only target pleadings on the basis that the damages or relief sought is not supported by the allegations of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 92, subd. (d).)

Because Respondent does not seek to strike a pleading, the Motion to Strike is DENIED.

  1. Mechanic’s Lien

A. 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).) 

B. Discussion  

The claim of mechanic’s lien was recorded by Precioso Construction on November 27, 2019. (Pet., Exh. A.) On July 2, 2020, the Court found all other requirements for the Petition were satisfied. (7/2/20 Minute Order.) The Court notes, however, that Respondent filed an Answer to the Petition on December 15, 2020. Therein, it argues for the first time, that it did not fail to bring an action to enforce the lien within 90 days of recordation. (12/15/20 Answer, ¶ 4.) It further argues that “due to Covid-19 lockdowns and the extension of the statutes of limitations, [Respondent] should have been entitled to file its motion to enforce the lien.” (Id.)

Respondent’s argument is unpersuasive. The 90-period to enforce its lien that was filed on November 27, 2019 expired on February 25, 2020. Respondent did not submit any evidence of any action filed to enforce the lien before the lien expired. Second, the Court had not yet taken any action due to the COVID-19 pandemic in February. Indeed, the Court did not begin implementing COVID-19 related rules and procedures until mid-March. Respondent did not cite any authority indicating otherwise. [

Having previously found that all other requirements for the Petition to release Petitioners’ property from Respondent’s mechanic’s lien have been satisfied, the Court addresses only the service requirement.

1. Service Requirements

“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).) (Emphasis added.)

Section 8108, subdivision (d) provides that “[i]f the person to be notified is a direct contractor or a subcontractor, the contractor’s address shown on the building permit, on the contractor’s contract, or on the records of the Contractor’s State License Board” is the proper place to give notice. (Emphasis added.) “If the person to be notified is a claimant, the claimant’s address shown on the claimant’s contract, preliminary notice, claim of lien, stop payment notice, or claim against a payment bond, or on the records of the Contractors’ State License Board” is the proper place to give notice. (Civ. Code, § 8108, subd. (e).) (Emphasis added.)

A “person” includes an individual, a corporation, public entity, business trust, estate trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, or other entity. (Civ. Code, § 8032.) (Emphasis added.) A claimant is defined as “a person that has a right under this part to record a claim of lien, give a stop payment notice, or assert a claim against a payment bond, or do any combination of the foregoing.” A “direct contractor” is defined as a “contractor that has a direct contractual relationship with an owner.” (Civ. Code, § 8018.) The petitioner bears the burden of proving he complied with service and date for hearing requirements. (Civ. Code, § 8488, subd. (a).)

Here, Respondent is a claimant who filed a claim of lien As noted above, at the initial July 2, 2020 hearing, the Court identified several deficiencies in Petitioners’ proofs of service that were filed on June 1, 2020. (7/2/20 Minute Order.) Specifically, the Court found that the three proofs of service were incomplete because they did not include the date the moving papers were served or the name of the person effectuating service by mail. (Id.) On July 17, 2020, Petitioners’ counsel filed a declaration in support of the Petition including copies of three certified return receipts addressed to 2 Red Tail Lane, Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 (the “Red Tail” Address), 27702 Crown Valley Pkwy, Suite D-4, Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 (the “Crown Valley Address”), and 9450 SW Gemini Dr. #7790, Beaverton, OR 92008 (the “Gemini Dr. Address”). (7/17/20 Adams Decl., ¶¶ 3, Exhs. 1-3.) At the September 17 continued hearing, the Court found the declaration was insufficient to cure the defects previously noted and ordered Petitioners to file amended and complete proofs of service. (9/17/20 Minute Order.)

That same day, Petitioners filed an amended proof of service for the Petition. It states that the Petition was served via certified mail as required by Civil Code section 8486, on March 9, 2020. (9/17/20 Proof of Service.) Although no person is identified as being served on behalf of the Respondent, it need not do so as the definition of “person” for purposes of these proceedings includes a corporation. (Civ. Code, § 8032.) Petitioners served “Precioso Construction,” which is the name set forth in the claim of mechanic’s lien. (Pet., Exh. A.) In addition, the Gemini Dr. Address and the Crown Valley Address are both listed on the claim of mechanic’s lien filed with the County Recorder’s Office. (Pet., Exh. A.) Thus, Petitioners’ amended proof of service filed on September 17, 2020 coupled with the return receipts filed on July 17, 2020, demonstrate that Respondent was properly served with the Petition on March 9, 2020. (Civ. Code, § 8108, subd. (e).)

Petitioners have carried their initial burden of producing evidence as to the issue of compliance with the service and date of hearing requirements. (Civ. Code, § 8488, subd. (a).) It is Respondent’s burden to show the lien remains valid. (Id.) Respondent has not filed or submitted any evidence demonstrating the lien remains valid.  

Accordingly, the Petition is GRANTED.  

  1. Motion for Attorney’s Fees

The party prevailing on a petition to release property from a mechanic’s lien is entitled to attorney’s fees and costs. (Civ. Code, § 8288, subd. (c).)

Respondent opposes the Motion for Attorney’s fees on several grounds. First, Respondent argues that the Motion for Attorney’s Fees was improperly served and thus should be denied on a procedural basis. (Mot. for Atty Fees, pp. 3:10-4:9.) However, because Respondent admits having “sought out a copy of” the Motion for Attorney’s Fees and supporting declaration, because Respondent filed a “substantive” opposition, and in the interest of finally resolving this matter, the Court proceeds to make a ruling.

Respondent’s only other argument in Opposition is that Petitioners are not prevailing parties, nor will ever be prevailing parties, because Petitioners failed to properly serve the Petition. (Mot. for Atty. Fees, p. 4:10-28.) However, because the Court already found Petitioners’ supplemental papers demonstrate service under Civil Code section 8486 was sufficient, and because Respondent has not demonstrated the lien remains valid, Petitioners will be the prevailing party in this action.

A. Reasonableness of Attorney’s Fees Requested

 

The fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the “lodestar” method, i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.  A computation of time spent on a case and the reasonable value of that time is fundamental to a determination of an appropriate attorneys’ fee award. The lodestar figure may then be adjusted, based on factors specific to the case, in order to fix the fee at the fair market value for the legal services provided. (Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49.)  Such an approach anchors the trial court’s analysis to an objective determination of the value of the attorney’s services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary.  (Id., at p. 48, fn. 23.)  After the trial court has performed the lodestar calculations, it shall consider whether the total award so calculated under all of the circumstances of the case is more than a reasonable amount and, if so, shall reduce the section 1717 award so that it is a reasonable figure.  (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1084, 1095-1096.)

As explained in Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140, 154:

“[T]he lodestar is the basic fee for comparable legal services in the community; it may be adjusted by the court based on factors including, as relevant herein, (1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other employment by the attorneys, (4) the contingent nature of the fee award. [Citation.] The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a fee at the fair market value for the particular action. In effect, the court determines, retrospectively, whether the litigation involved a contingent risk or required extraordinary legal skill justifying augmentation of the unadorned lodestar in order to approximate the fair market rate for such services. . . . This approach anchors the trial court's analysis to an objective determination of the value of the attorney's services, ensuring that the amount awarded is not arbitrary.” [Internal citations and internal quotation marks omitted.]

(Graciano v. Robinson Ford Sales, Inc. (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 140.) “It is well established that the determination of what constitutes reasonable attorney fees is committed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision cannot be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. [Citations.]  The value of legal services performed in a case is a matter in which the trial court has its own expertise. . . . The trial court makes its determination after consideration of a number of factors, including the nature of the litigation, its difficulty, the amount involved, the skill required in its handling, the skill employed, the attention given, the success or failure, and other circumstances in the case.  [Citations.]”  (Melnyk v. Robledo (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 618, 623-624.) 

No specific findings reflecting the court’s calculations are required.  The record need only show that the attorney fees were awarded according to the “lodestar” or “touchstone” approach.  The court’s focus in evaluating the facts should be to provide a fee award reasonably designed to completely compensate attorneys for the services provided.  The starting point for this determination is the attorney’s time records. (Horsford v. Board of Trustees of Calif. State Univ. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 359, 395-397 [verified time records entitled to credence absent clear indication they are erroneous].)  However, California case law permits fee awards in the absence of detailed time sheets. (Sommers v. Erb (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 1644, 1651; Dunk v. Ford Motor Co. (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1794, 1810; Nightingale v. Hyundai Motor America (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 99, 103.)  An experienced trial judge is in a position to assess the value of the professional services rendered in his or her court.  (Id.; Serrano v. Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25, 49; Wershba v. Apple Computer, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 224, 255.)

In their moving papers filed on July 17, 2020, Petitioners request attorney’s fees of $4,141.00 and costs of $709.89. (Mot. for Atty Fees, Adams Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) This amount is based on 20.2 hours of attorney time, including 8.1 hours spent researching, drafting, and filing the Petition, billed at a discounted rate of $205.00 per hour (from his regular $415.00 per hour). (Id.) Petitioners’ counsel states that all paralegal-type work and multiple additional filings were not billed to the client. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Respondent did not argue the amount of attorney’s fees sought was unreasonable in its Opposition.

In their Reply papers filed on November 23, 2020, Petitioners request additional fees and costs of $3,546.57. (Reply, p. 5:8-23.) Additional fees of $3,280.00, based on 16 additional hours of work were spent on filing the Motion for Attorney’s Fees, attending hearings, and filing supplemental papers as requested by the Court. (Reply, Adams Decl., ¶¶ 3, 6, 7, Exh. 1.) Petitioners’ counsel also explains that he did not bill Petitioners for 3.9 hours of work related to correcting issues on the proofs of service identified by the Court. (Id.)

Respondent filed an Objection and Sur-Reply on March 4, 2021. Therein, it argues that Petitioners’ counsel’s entries are vague and repetitive. (3/4/21 Sur-Reply, pp. 2:1-3:12.) Respondent argues that the September 9, 2020 entry for .7 hours reads “New attorney in case” but does not describe any legal work performed. (Id., p. 3:3-4.) However, that entire entry reads, “New attorney in case, email. Review response to Petition. Email Client.” (Reply, Exh. 1.) (Italics added.) Respondent also argues that the November 18, 2020 entry for .9 hours and November 21, 2020 entry for 1.6 hours are duplicative. (Sur-Reply, p. 3:6-8.) The entries read, “[r]eview opp filed, draft reply, email client,” and “[o]ppostion, draft reply,” respectively. (Reply, Exh. 1.) The Court does not find this to be duplicative as it is reasonable to spend a total time of 2.5 hours reviewing Respondent’s opposition to Petitioners’ attorney’s fees, emailing his client, and drafting a reply.

Having reviewed the attached invoices, and comparing the entries with the docket, the Court does not find them to be impermissibly vague. However, some hours billed are somewhat excessive. The Court finds 8.1 hours spent on preparing the initial Petition to Release Property excessive (Mot. for Atty Fees, Exh. A); the Court finds that 3.5 hours is reasonable. Respondent objects to the entry for February 27, 2020 for 3.2 hours spent getting a certified copy of the lien and filing the Petition as excessive. (Sur-Reply, Landver Decl., ¶ 3.) The Court agrees. The Court finds 1 hour for this task is reasonable. The remaining attorney’s fees and costs, however, are reasonable.

Petitioners’ request for attorney’s and costs of $7,003.46, based on $6,027.00 and costs of $976.46, is GRANTED.

  1. Conclusion & Order

(1) Respondent Precioso Construction’s Motion to Strike is DENIED.

(2) The Petition to Release Petitioners’ Property from Respondent’s Mechanic’s Lien is GRANTED.

(3) Petitioners’ Motion for Attorney’s Fees is also GRANTED. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner attorney’s fees and costs of $7,003.46.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STCP00901    Hearing Date: December 02, 2020    Dept: 25

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

CASE NAME: Vaughan, et al v. Precioso Construction PET. FILED: 02-27-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP00901

NOTICE: OK

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

MOVING PARTY: Petitioners Theodore Vaughan and Alexandra Vaughan

RESP. PARTY: Respondent Precioso Construction

MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(Civ. Code § 8488)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioners Theodore Vaughan and Alexandra Vaughan’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is CONTINUED TO JAN 12, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to allow for the resolution of underlying Petition for Release of Mechanic’s Lien, which the Court took under submission on November 5, 2020.

SERVICE:

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

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

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of November 17, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of November 23, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background & Discussion

On February 27, 2020, Petitioners Theodore Vaughan and Alexandria Vaughan (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed a Petition to Release Property – Mechanic’s Lien (the “Petition”) against Respondent Precioso Construction (“Respondent”) seeking an order to release a mechanic’s lien filed on November 27, 2019, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.

An initial hearing on the Petition was held on July 2, 2020. At that time, the Court found Petitioners satisfied the pre-filing demand requirements of Civil Code section 8482 and the petition requirements of Civil Code section 8484. (7/2/20 Minute Order.) However, it also noted several deficiencies with Petitioners’ proof of service. (Id.) The Court ordered Petitioners to file an amended proof of service and warned that failure to do so could result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied. (Id.)

On July 17, 2020, Petitioners filed the instant Motion for Attorney’s Fees (the “Motion”).

At the continued September 17 hearing on the Petition, the Court found Petitioners had not filed amended proofs of service as requested and continued the hearing once more. (9/17/20 Minute Order.) Petitioners filed amended proofs of service on September 17, 2020. Respondent filed a Notice of Failure to Cure and of Violation of Court Order on November 4, 2020, but no opposition on the merits. Following oral argument from the parties at the November 5th continued hearing, the Court took the matter under submission.

Respondent filed an Opposition to this Motion on November 17, and Petitioners filed a Reply on November 23.

Civil Code section 8488, subdivision (c), provides that the prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees. However, as Court has not yet issued a ruling on the underlying Petition, the prevailing party has not yet been determined. Accordingly, this Motion is CONTINUED to allow for the resolution of the Petition.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners Theodore Vaughan and Alexandra Vaughan’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is CONTINUED TO JAN 12, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. to allow for the resolution of underlying Petition for Release of Mechanic’s Lien, which the Court took under submission on November 5, 2020.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STCP00901    Hearing Date: November 05, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., November 5, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Vaughan, et al. v. Precioso Construction PET. FILED: 02-27-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP00901

NOTICE: OK

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO RELEASE PROPERTY – MECHANIC’S LIEN

MOVING PARTY: Petitioners Theodore Vaughan and Alexandria Vaughan

RESP. PARTY: Respondent Precioso Construction

PETITION TO RELEASE MECHANIC’S LIEN

(Civ. Code § 8480, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioners Theodore Vaughan and Alexandria Vaughan’s Petition to Release Property is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, at the hearing, Petitioners’ counsel demonstrates Respondent’s counsel was served with the Petition at least 15 days before this hearing. Should Petitioners’ counsel fail to appear, the Petition will be DENIED.

SERVICE:

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

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

[ ] At least 15 Days Lapsed (Civ. Code § 486(b)) NO

[ ] Correct Manner of Service (Civ. Code § 8486(b)) NO

OPPOSITION: None filed as of November 3, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of November 3, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On February 27, 2020, Petitioners Theodore Vaughan and Alexandria Vaughan (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed the instant Petition to Release Property – Mechanic’s Lien (the “Petition”) against Respondent Precioso Construction (“Respondent”) seeking an order to release a mechanic’s lien filed on November 27, 2019, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.

An initial hearing on the Petition was held on July 2, 2020. At that time, the Court found Petitioners satisfied the pre-filing demand requirements of Civil Code section 8482 and the petition requirements of Civil Code section 8484. (7/2/20 Minute Order.) However, it also noted several deficiencies with Petitioners’ proof of service. (Id.) The Court ordered Petitioners to file an amended proof of service and warned that failure to do so could result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied. (Id.)

On July 17, 2020, instead of filing amended proofs of service, Petitioners’ counsel filed a supplemental declaration. On September 8, 2020, Respondent filed a Notice of Failure to Cure and of Violation of Court Order.

At the September 17, 2020 hearing, the Court found Petitioners had not filed amended proofs of service as requested and continued the hearing once more. (9/17/20 Minute Order.) Petitioners filed amended proofs of service on September 17, 2020.

No opposition to the Petition has been filed.

  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

Having previously found that all other requirements for the Petition have been satisfied, the Court addresses only the service requirement.

A. Service Requirements

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).) (Italics added.) Section 8108 provides addresses at which a respondent must be served, depending on the title of the person to be served. The petitioner bears the burden of proving he complied with service and date for hearing requirements. (Civ. Code. § 8488, subd. (a).)

As noted above, at the initial July 2, 2020 hearing, the Court identified several deficiencies in Petitioners’ proofs of service. Specifically, the Court found that the three proofs of service were incomplete because they did not include the date the moving papers were served or the name of the person effectuating service by mail. (7/2/20 Minute Order.) The proofs of service also did not identify the name of the person served on behalf of the corporate Respondent. (Id.) On September 17, 2020, the Court found that a declaration filed by Petitioners’ counsel was insufficient to cure the defects in the previously filed proofs of service. (9/17/20 Minute Order.)

That same day, Petitioners filed an amended proof of service for the Petition. It states that the Petition was served via certified mail as required by Civil Code section 8486, on March 9, 2020. (9/17/20 Proof of Service.) Respondent filed a late Notice of Failure to Cure and of Violation of Court Order on November 4, arguing the proof of service is defective as Respondent is a corporation and Petitioners failed to identify the person who was served on behalf of the corporation. (11/4/20 Resp. Brief, p. 3:11-12.) The Court notes, however, that in the supplemental declaration filed on July 17, 2020, Petitioners presented evidence that the Petition had been served via certified mail at three different addresses, including 2 Red Tail Lane, Ladera Ranch, CA 92694, the home address of Dennis Precioso (“Dennis”), the person with whom Petitioners worked with before the Petition was filed. (7/17/20 Adams Decl., ¶¶ 3, 7, Exhs. 1-3.) Notably, Respondents filed a Motion to Strike this declaration on September 11, 2020 arguing, in part, that although Dennis’ wife signed the return receipt, the documents she received did not include a copy of the Petition. The Motion to Strike is scheduled for March 24, 2021.

Petitioners also filed a proof of service on September 17, 2020 demonstrating that the Petition was electronically served on Respondent’s Counsel, Alina Landver. (9/17/20 Proof of Service.) This proof of service, however, does not indicate the date the documents were served. (Id. at ¶ 3(c).) Petitioners’ counsel is admonished for failing to cure a relatively simple proof of service issue on multiple occasions. Indeed, it is difficult for the Court to have to piece together whether the service requirements of Section 8486 have been met from Petitioners’ multiple filings.

However, in the interest of judicial economy, Petitioners’ counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing to clarify when the Petition was served on Respondent’s counsel. Given that Respondent has already appeared in this action through its attorney, if the Court finds the Petition was served on Ms. Landver at least 15 days before this hearing, the Petition will be granted.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners Theodore Vaughan and Alexandria Vaughan’s Petition to Release Property is GRANTED ON THE CONDITION THAT, at the hearing, Petitioners’ counsel demonstrates Respondent’s counsel was served with the Petition at least 15 days before this hearing. Should Petitioners’ counsel fail to appear, the Petition will be DENIED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STCP00901    Hearing Date: September 17, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., September 17, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Vaughan, et al. v. Precioso Construction PET. FILED: 02-27-20

CASE NUMBER: 20STCP00901

NOTICE: NO

PROCEEDINGS: PETITION TO RELEASE PROPERTY – MECHANIC’S LIEN

MOVING PARTY: Petitioners Theodore Vaughan and Alexandria Vaughan

RESP. PARTY: Respondent Precioso Construction

PETITION TO RELEASE MECHANIC’S LIEN

(Civ. Code § 8480, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioners Theodore Vaughan and Alexandria Vaughan’s Petition to Release Property is CONTINUED TO NOV 5, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioners are ordered to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so will result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied. Respondent must also file a proof of service demonstrating its Notice of Failure to Cure and Violation of Court Order was properly served on Petitioners.

SERVICE:

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) NO

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NO

[ ] At least 15 Days Lapsed (Civ. Code § 8486(b)) NO

[ ] Correct Manner of Service (Civ. Code § 8486(b)) NO

OPPOSITION: None filed as of September 15, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of September 15, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On February 27, 2020, Petitioners Theodore Vaughan and Alexandria Vaughan (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed the instant Petition to Release Property – Mechanic’s Lien (the “Petition”) against Respondent Precioso Construction (“Respondent”) seeking an order to release a mechanic’s lien filed on November 27, 2019, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.

An initial hearing on the Petition was held on July 2, 2020. At that time, the Court noted several deficiencies with Petitioners’ proof of service. (7/2/20 Minute Order.) The Court ordered Petitioners to file an amended proof of service and warned that failure to do so could result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied. (Id.)

On July 17, 2020, instead of filing supplemental proofs of service, Petitioners’ counsel filed a supplemental declaration. On September 8, 2020, Respondent filed a Notice of Failure to Cure and of Violation of Court Order.

  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 Requirements

As an initial matter, the Court addresses the issue of notice.

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).) Section 8108 provides addresses at which a respondent must be served, depending on the title of the person to be served. The petitioner bears the burden of proving he complied with service and date for hearing requirements. (Civ. Code. § 8488, subd. (a).)

As noted above, at the initial July 2, 2020 hearing, the Court identified several deficiencies in Petitioners’ proofs of service. Specifically, the Court found that the three proofs of service filed by Petitioners were incomplete because they did not include the date the moving papers were served or the name of the person effectuating service by mail. (7/2/20 Minute Order.) The proofs of service also did not identify the name of the person served on behalf of corporate Respondent. (Id.)

Petitioners’ counsel submitted a supplemental declaration on July 17, 2020. Therein, he attempts to explain why the proofs of service are sufficient and attaches copies of return receipts that counsel argues demonstrate the Petition was properly served. (7/17/20 Adams Decl., ¶ 3, Exhs. 1-3.) However, this is insufficient. At the previous hearing, the Court specifically noted that the proofs of service filed were incomplete, yet Petitioners failed to file amended proofs of service. (7/2/20 Minute Order.) In addition, Petitioners’ counsel’s supplemental declaration does not include a proof of service demonstrating it was served on Respondent. (See Id.) Thus, the Court cannot find that Respondent was given an opportunity to respond to the Petition or the supplemental declaration.

In the interest of resolving this matter on the merits, the Court will CONTINUE the hearing one last time to allow Petitioners to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies noted above. Petitioners must file fully completed proofs of service demonstrating the Petition and all supplemental papers filed with the Court were properly served on Respondent. Failure to do so will result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

The Court also notes that Respondent’s Notice of Failure to Cure and Violation of Court Order does not include a proof of service demonstrating it was served on Petitioners. Respondent is ordered to file a proof of service demonstrating it was properly served on Petitioners.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners Theodore Vaughan and Alexandria Vaughan’s Petition to Release Property is CONTINUED TO NOV 5, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioners are ordered to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so will result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied. Respondent must also file a proof of service demonstrating its Notice of Failure to Cure and Violation of Court Order was properly served on Petitioners.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 20STCP00901    Hearing Date: July 02, 2020    Dept: 25

PETITION TO RELEASE MECHANIC’S LIEN

(Civ. Code § 8480, et seq.)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Petitioners Theodore Vaughan and Alexandria Vaughan’s Petition to Release Property is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 17, 2020_ at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioners are ordered to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Petition being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

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

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

[ ] At least 15 Days Lapsed (Civ. Code § 8486(b)) NO

[ ] Correct Manner of Service (Civ. Code § 8486(b)) NO

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

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

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On February 27, 2020, Petitioners Theodore Vaughan and Alexandria Vaughan (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed the instant Petition to Release Property – Mechanic’s Lien (the “Petition”) against Respondent Precioso Construction (“Respondent”) seeking an order to release a mechanic’s lien filed on November 27, 2019, as well as attorney’s fees and costs.

  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 Requirements

As an initial matter, the Court addresses the issue of notice.

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).) Section 8108 provides addresses at which a respondent must be served, depending on the title of the person to be served. The petitioner bears the burden of proving he complied with service and date for hearing requirements. (Civ. Code. § 8488, subd. (a).)

Here, Petitioners filed three proofs of service purporting to demonstrate they served Respondent with the Petition and Notice of Hearing in accordance with Civil Code section 8486, subdivision (b) by registered mail at the following three addresses: (1) C/O Mail Center, 450 SW Gemini Way #7790, Beaverton, OR 97008, (2) 2 Red Rail Lane, Ladera Ranch, CA 92694, and (3) 27702 Crown Valley Pkwy #D4-434, Ladera Ranch, CA 92694. (6/1/20 Proofs of Service.) However, all three proofs of service are incomplete. Specifically, the proofs of service do not include the date the moving papers were served or the name of the person effectuating service by mail. (Id.) Instead, the proofs of service improperly state that the “U.S. Mail Service” is effectuating service. (Id. at ¶ 7.) In addition, although Respondent is a corporation (Pet., ¶ 2), the proofs of service do not identify the name of the person served on behalf of the corporation (Proofs of Service, ¶ 3(b).)

Thus, Petitioners are ordered to file an amended proof of service correcting the deficiencies noted above.

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.)

Here, Petitioners provided a certified copy of the mechanic’s lien (Pet., Exh. A) and have properly alleged the date of recordation of the lien, the county in which the lien is recorded, the legal description of the property against which the lien was recorded, and that no extension of credit has been granted. (Pet., ¶¶ 1, 3-5.) In addition, Petitioners complied with the pre-filing notice and demand requirement by serving Respondent with a written demand to remove the lien on December 27, 2019, more than 10 days before this Petition was filed. (Id., ¶¶ 5-6, Exh. B.) There is no indication that an action to enforce the lien has been commenced and the 90-day time period to commence such action has now expired. (Id. at ¶ 4.) Furthermore, Petitioners allege that Respondent has not filed for bankruptcy and that no other restraint exists that prevents Respondent from filing to foreclose on the lien. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

Thus, the Court finds that Petitioners have satisfied the requirements of Civil Code sections 8484 and 8482.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Petitioners Theodore Vaughan and Alexandria Vaughan’s Petition to Release Property is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Petitioners are ordered to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. 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 LANDVER ALINA