JOHNNY HUANG VS. JIACHENG HOME IMPROVEMENTS

Petitioner Johnny Huang’s unopposed petition to release the mechanic’s lien recorded against real property located at San Mateo County at 4112 Suzie Street, San Mateo, California 94403, A ssessor’s Parcel Number 040-432-060, by responding party, claimant Jiacheng Home Improvements, on August 12, 2025, is GRANTED.

“An action to enforce a mechanics lien must be commenced within 90 days of recordation of the claim of lien. If an action is not timely commenced, the claim of lien expires and is unenforceable. (C.C. 8460(a); see C.C. 8460(b).)” (4 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2025) Action to Foreclose Lien, § 34.)

The statutory scheme reflects a balancing of interests between property owners and claimants. The primary goal of the statutes is to protect a laborer or material supplier who improves an owner’s property by assuring payment for the value of work done. (See T.O. IX, LLC v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 140, 146, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 602 (T.O.).) At the same time, the statutory scheme reflects a recognition that the recording of a mechanic’s lien encumbers the affected real property. Thus, in providing security and a swift remedy, mechanic’s lien laws protect both lien claimants and property owners. (Ibid.)

(RGC Gaslamp, LLC v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co., Inc. (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 413, 422.)

If a claimant has not commenced an action to enforce the mechanics lien within the time limits of Civil Code section 8460, the property owner may petition the court for an order releasing the property from the lien. (Civ. Code § 8480, subd. (a).) “At least 10 days before petitioning for a release order, the owner must give the claimant a notice demanding that the claimant execute and record a release of the lien claim. The notice must comply with the requirements of C.C. 8100 et seq. and state the grounds for the demand. (C.C. 8482.).” (4 Witkin, supra, Release of Lien, § 36.)

The petitioner bears the initial burden of proof as to producing evidence of the petition and compliance with statutory service requirements upon claimant. If judgment is in favor of the petitioner, the court shall order the property released from the claim of lien award the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees. (Civ. Code § 8488 subd. (b-c).)

May 12, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar PAGE 21 Judge: HONORABLE NANCY L. FINEMAN, Department 04 ________________________________________________________________________

The Court’s review of the information provided the lien recorded by respondent is no longer enforceable pursuant to California Civil Code section 8460, subdivision (a) because an action to enforce a mechanic’s lien must be commenced within 90 days after th e lien is recorded. Here, the mechanics lien was recorded in the Recorder’s Office of the County of San Mateo, Redwood City, California on August 12, 2025, in the amount of $6,738. (Petition for Release Ex. A.)

More than 90 days have elapsed since August 12, 2025, and Respondent has not commenced any action to foreclose or otherwise enforce the lien. (Petition for Release ¶ 5, see Ex. B.) Petitioner provided adequate proof of service upon respondent of the request to release the lien. (Civ. Code § 8482.)

Accordingly, the petition to release 4112 Suzie Street, San Mateo, California 94403, Assessor’s Parcel Number 040-432-060, from the lien recorded by Respondent Jiacheng Home Improvements upon the recordation of a certified copy of this degree is GRANTED. (Civ. Code §§ 8462; 8490 [form of judgment].)

Petitioner also seeks attorney’s fees and costs for prevailing on the dismissal of the mechanics lien. Civil Code section 8488 only entitles the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees and does not include costs. Here, proof of costs was neither submitted nor are they available under the statute thus the request for costs is DENIED.

With respect to attorney’s fees, the Court notes that no accounting of hourly rate and hours billed from legal counsel has been provided, nor could they be as petitioner is proceeding in pro per. Because petitioner is self-represented he is not entitled to payment for attorney’s fees. (Musaelian v. Adams (2009) 45 Cal.4th 512, 520 [attorney-client relationship necessary for attorneys’ fees to be “incurred”].) Moreover, the record before the court neither indicates circumstances which would render fees or sanctions necessary or just. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for attorney’s fees is DENIED.