DCFS USA v. Superior Court
Filed 9/15/08 DCFS USA v. Superior Court CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
DCFS USA, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, Respondent; S.A.F. FORGED WHEELS, INC., Real Party in Interest. | E046354 (Super.Ct.No. CIVRS702125) OPINION |
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. Ben T. Kayashima, Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, 6 of the Cal. Const.) Petition granted.
Caley & Associates, and Rebecca A. Caley and Tina M. Starr for Petitioner.
No appearance for Respondent.
Sanford M. Ehrmann for Real Party in Interest.
In this matter, we have reviewed the petition, the response filed by real party in interest, and the reply. We have determined that resolution of the matter involves the application of settled principles of law and that issuance of a peremptory writ in the first instance is therefore appropriate. (Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc. (1984) 36 Cal.3d 171, 178.)
The Legislature has provided a remedy for suppliers of materials and performers of work on automobilesthe lien described in Civil Code section 3068. Real party in interest did not contest its failure to perfect that lien in the manner prescribed by statute. Hence, real party in interest has no claim for compensation from petitioner, with whom real party in interest had no contractual relationship.
The trial courts reliance on the more flexible lien provisions of Civil Code section 3051 was misplaced, as that statute expressly does not apply to motor vehicles.
DISPOSITION
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandate is granted. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue, directing the Superior Court of San Bernardino County to vacate its order denying petitioners motion for summary judgment and to enter a new order granting said motion.
As the trial court relied on authority not cited by real party in interest, and as real party in interests opposition below did not challenge the facts asserted by petitioner, it is appropriate that the parties shall bear their own costs.
Petitioner is DIRECTED to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of service on all parties.
McKINSTER
Acting P. J.
We concur:
GAUT
J.
MILLER
J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by La Mesa Property line Lawyers.
