VERIFIED PETITION TO RELEASE PROPERTY FROM MECHANICS LIEN
Defendants request sanctions pursuant to sections 2023.010, subdivisions (i), (h), 2023.020, and 2023.030, subdivision (a), on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to properly meet and confer and brought the present motion without substantial justification. The Court does not find that Plaintiff failed to properly meet and confer. However, for all the reasons discussed above— namely, the main purpose of the Motion seeking an advisory opinion on an unripe issue and Plaintiff’s failure to meaningfully address the issue—the Court finds that Plaintiff brought the present motion without substantial justification.
Thus, Defendants’ request for sanctions is GRANTED IN PART. The Court finds Defendants’ counsel’s hourly rate and time spent opposing the motion reasonable. (See Declaration of Akhila Ganapathy, ¶ 9.) However, the Court does not grant sanctions for anticipated time. (Ibid.) Thus, Plaintiff is ordered to pay, within 20 days of Notice of Entry of Order, to Defendants, care of their attorneys of record, sanctions in the amount of $1,050 [=$210 / hr x 5 hrs].
Angelica Hernandez v. Estate of Jack Malan et al 25CV002200
SPECIAL APPEARANCE OF DEFENDANTS: MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is MOOT.
Specially appearing Defendant Chris Malan (“Defendant”) previously filed a motion to quash service of summons, directed at service on her in the capacity as an individual, successor in interest to Jack Malan, and as successor trustee of the Malan Family Trust on May 11, 2026, as evidenced by the Proofs of Service filed May 18 and 26, 2026. On June 18, 2026, Defendant’s motion was DENIED. The present Motion to Quash is directed at service on her on June 14, 2026, as evidenced by the Proof of Service filed July 16, 2026. However, no such service on June 14 was necessary in light of the Court’s June 18 Order, which was mailed to the parties on July 29, 2026. Therefore, the present Motion directed at such unnecessary service is MOOT.
Lee Bycel et al v. Francisco Ruiz 26CV001394
VERIFIED PETITION TO RELEASE PROPERTY FROM MECHANICS LIEN
APPEARANCE REQUIRED
Lee Bycel and Judy Bycel (collectively, “Petitioners”) petition, pursuant to Civil Code section 8460 et seq., for an order releasing a mechanic’s lien recorded on the real property located at 860 Acorn Way, Napa, CA, 94558 (“Property”) by respondents/lien claimants Francisco Ruiz (“Claimant”). Petitioners also request an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against Claimant in the sum of $5,250.00.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Pursuant to Civil Code section 8480, subdivision (a), “[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.” Civil Code section 8460 provides that “[t]he claimant shall commence an action to enforce a lien within 90 days after recordation of the claim of lien” and “[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.) California case law has upheld these statutory provisions holding that a “lien, which was created by the statutory scheme, is automatically nullified by a failure to timely commence a foreclosure proceeding.” (Coast Central Credit Union v. Sup. Ct. (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 703, 711; see also Solit v. Tokai Bank (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1435, 1442 [“If the claimant fails to commence an action to foreclose a timely recorded lien within 90 days, the lien ‘automatically shall be null and void and of no further force and effect.’”].)
Despite the fact that no opposition has been filed, the Petition is deemed controverted by Respondent. (See Civil Code § 8488, subd. (a).)
The Court finds evidence in the file sufficient to establish that Petitioners have complied with the service and date for hearing requirements of the statute. (See §§ 8488, subd. (a), 8486, subd. (b), and 8108.)
The Court further finds that Petitioners have produced evidence, in the form of the Exhibits to the Verified Petition and the Declarations of Jason Luros, sufficient to carry their initial burden, as to:
1. Petitioners’ ownership of an interest in the Property (§ 8480, subd. (a)); 2. The date of recordation of the claim of lien (§ 8484, subd. (a)); 3. The county in which the claim of lien is recorded (Id. at subd. (b); 4. The book and page or series number of the place in the official records where the claim of lien is recorded (Id. at subd. (c)); 5. The legal description of the property subject to the claim of lien (Id. at subd. (d)); 6. 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; (Id. at subd. (e)); 7.
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 (Id. at subd. (f)); 8. Whether an action to enforce the lien is pending (Id. at subd. (g)); and, 9. 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 (Id. at subd. (h));
Respondent bears the burden of proof of the validity of the lien. (See § 8488, subd. (a).)
“The prevailing party is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.” (Civ. Code, 8488, subd. (c).) To the extent judgment is in favor of Petitioners, the Court finds that the hourly rate charged by counsel, time spent preparing the Application, and court costs, for a total of $4,200 [= $525 / hr x 7 hrs + $525 costs] are reasonable. (See Declaration of Jason Luros, filed 7/6/26, at ¶¶ 9, 11-12.) The Court does not, however, grant estimated future fees. (See Id., ¶ 10.)
**at 9:30 a.m.** Maudie Pollatrini v. Auberge Resorts, LLC et al 24CV001401
[1] DEFENDANT AUBERGE RESORTS, LLC’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION
[2] DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT and [3] DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
TENTATIVE RULING: All three matters are CONTINUED to August 25, 2026 at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B.
GUARDIANSHIP CALENDAR – Hon. Francisca P. Tisher, Dept. 6 (Criminal Courts Bldg. – 1111 Third St.) at 2:00 p.m.
Jorge Valdez Melgoza v. Maribel Melgoza Reza 26FL000385
[1] PETITION TO ESTABLISH PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP
[2] REQUEST FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE FINDINGS
TENTATIVE RULING: Both matters are GRANTED.
Jesus Valdez Melgoza v. Maribel Melgoza Reza 26FL000395
[1] PETITION TO ESTABLISH PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP
[2] REQUEST FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE FINDINGS
TENTATIVE RULING: Both matters are GRANTED.
7