Petition to Release Mechanic’s Lien
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Cynthia P. Smith, Dept. A (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Daniel Uhimets v. Jaye Miller 26CV000672
PETITION TO RELEASE MECHANIC’S LIEN PURSUANT TO CIVIL CODE SECTION 8484
APPEARANCE REQUIRED
Daniel Uhimets/DA Investors Group (“Petitioner”) petitions, pursuant to Civil Code section 8460 et seq.,1 for an order releasing a mechanic’s lien recorded on the real property located at 2655 Harness Dr., Pope Valley, CA, 94567 (“Property”) by Respondents/Lien Claimant Jaye Miller (“Claimant”).
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.” 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.” (§ 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 § 8488, subd. (a).)
The Court finds evidence in the file sufficient to establish that Petitioner has complied with the service and date for hearing requirements of the statute. (See §§ 8488, subd. (a), 8486, subd. (b), and 8108.)
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?”
The Court takes judicial notice of the Lien attached to the Petition. The Court finds that Petitioner has produced evidence, in the form of the Verified Petition, sufficient to carry the initial burden, as to:
1. Its 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)); 1 All subsequent statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise noted.
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).)
CIVIL LAW & MOTION CALENDAR – Hon. Joseph J. Solga, Dept. B (Historic Courthouse) at 8:30 a.m.
Metropolitan Wines LLC et al v. Allied World Assurance 24CV000739 Company Inc. et al
DEFENDANT ALLIED WORLD ASSURANCE COMPANY (US) INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT AND SECOND AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT
TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED. Defendant Allied World Assurance Company (US) Inc. is granted five Court days’ leave, from entry of the instant order, to file and serve a Second Amended Cross-Complaint (SACC) in substantially the same form as that attached as Exhibit C to the Declaration of David C. Capell (Capell Decl.), and to file and serve a Second Amended Answer to Metropolitan Wines LLC’s Third Amended Complaint (TAC and Second Amended Answer) in substantially the same form as that attached as Exhibit E to the Capell Decl.
The moving party fails to include, in the notice of this motion, the current version of the Tentative Ruling notice required by Local Rule 2.9, effective 1/1/26. The current version allows a party or counsel to request a hearing by calling the Court or emailing the Court, at JudicialReception2@napa.courts.ca.gov and providing specified information set out in Local Rule 2.9. The moving party is therefore directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the current Tentative Ruling notice explicitly required by Local Rule 2.9 to opposing party/ies forthwith.
The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.
3