Handal, v. L.A. Wellness Center

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 Sec. 8486(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. Sec. 8488(a).)¿ ¿ ANALYSIS Petitioner Maxim Management Realty Group LLC seeks to release a mechanics lien from real property under Civil Code Sec. 8460.

Petitioner owns real property at issue, located at Glendon Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90034, Assessor's Parcel No. 4252-030-044 (the "Property"). The recorded lien erroneously identifies the street address as "3750" Glendon Avenue. The petition alleges that on March 2, 2026, Respondent Electro Tech Solutions Inc. recorded a claim of mechanics lien against the Property for $54,344.00. The proof of service on file shows service of the Petition on Respondent via certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested.

The service requirements of Section 8486(b) have therefore been satisfied.¿ The Petition conforms to section 8480. It states that Respondent did not commence an action as required under section 8460. It provides the date of recordation, a certified copy of the lien, the full description of the lien and property, the lack of extension of credit, notice to the claimant, the lack of actions regarding the lien, and the lack of restrains to prevent the enforcement of the lien. Petitioner sent a written demand for respondent to release the lien.

The demand was returned unclaimed, and Respondent has not mailed or recorded a release of the mechanics lien demonstrating that Respondent is unable or unwilling to release the lien. (Buck Dec., P.P. 5-6.) Petitioner therefore meets their initial burden on the petition, shifting the burden to claimant to show the validity of the lien. Respondent failed to oppose the Petition. Thus, the Petition must be granted. Petitioner also demonstrates entitlement to reasonable attorneys' fees of $3,000.00. (Buck Decl., P. 8.)

Accordingly, the petition is GRANTED. Attorneys' fees are awarded in favor of Petitioner and against Respondent in the requested amount of $3,000.00.

Wellness Center CASE NO.: 26SMCV01314 MOTION: Motion to Strike the First Amended Complaint HEARING DATE: 8/31/2026 LEGAL STANDARD Any party, within the time allowed to respond to a pleading may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part thereof. (CCP Sec. 435(b)(1); Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1322(b).) The court may, upon a motion or at any time in its discretion and upon terms it deems proper: (1) strike out any irrelevant, false, or

improper matter inserted in any pleading; or (2) strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of California, a court rule, or an order of the court. (CCP Sec.Sec. 436(a)-(b); Stafford v. Shultz (1954) 42 Cal.2d 767, 782 ["Matter in a pleading which is not essential to the claim is surplusage; probative facts are surplusage and may be stricken out or disregarded"].) "Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given." (Angie M. v.

Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227.) It is an abuse of discretion for the court to deny leave to amend where there is any reasonable possibility that plaintiff can state a good cause of action. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.) The burden is on plaintiff to show¿ in what manner ¿plaintiff can amend the complaint, and¿ how ¿that amendment will change the legal effect of the pleading.¿(Id.) ANALYSIS Defendant Los Angeles Wellness Center moves to strike Plaintiff Jay B. Handal's First Amended Complaint ("FAC").

Defendant argues that Plaintiff filed the FAC with the Court on July 13, 2026, without first serving Defendants, despite Defendants having already appeared in the action through counsel. Defendant argues that service of an amended pleading upon all appearing parties before seeking relief based upon that pleading is improper. Defendant fails to set forth grounds for striking the FAC. The August 4, 2026, Proof of Service shows electronic service of the FAC on July 15, 2026. Defendant cites no authority that such service was improper or could support a motion to strike.

The cited CCP sections do not state that an amended complaint needs to be served prior to filing. (See CCP Sec. 1010.6 [documents may be served electronically]; 1011 [service may be by delivery to an attorney]; 1013 [re: service via mail]; 1013a [re: affidavits for proof of service via mail].) Defendant cites an ex parte application to shorten Defendant's time to respond to the FAC to ten days. At worst, the failure to serve the FAC by that time might be grounds to deny or strike that motion. Such relief would be moot, however, since the Court already denied that ex parte.

Striking the FAC is unwarranted. Next, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's counsel violated the California Rules of Professional Conduct ("CRPC") by communicating directly with Defendant while serving the FAC. This alleged violation is not apparent from the pleadings or court records. Even assuming Plaintiff's counsel violated the CRPC, Defendant fails to cite any authority that CRPC violations would support striking a pleading. Accordingly, the motion to strike is DENIED. | Home -->)" -->