Hello dear reader!

Your humble blogger bids you a happy Wednesday, and brings you a report on a case recently denied review by the Court of Appeal, Cline v. Saddleback RV Sales.  The main focus of the case was upon the protestations of a lien claimant.

The case in chief was resolved, but, as is often the case in our beloved Southern California, the case was beset on all sides by lien claimants.

Well, one of the lien claimants (not the appealing party) filed a DOR for a lien conference, and an unrepresented lien claimant failed to appear at the conference.  So, the defendant served the good doctor-lien-claimant with the pretrial conference statement, the notice of trial, and all of its exhibits.  The matter was set for a lien trial and, about a month before the trial, the lien claimant in question hired a lien representative.   The defendant then served the lien representative with the same documents.

Shortly thereafter, the lien claimant (and his representative) both failed to appear at the trial, at which time the WCJ ordered the matter submitted on the record, and the lien claimant sought removal, which the WCAB promptly denied.

The rallying cry for the lien representative on removal was, of course, that it did not have notice of the trial because the lien representative just came on the scene a month before the trial.

This is something that happens often enough when dealing with lien claimants, especially when the merits for the lien aren’t there – whether the facts, the law, or both are against the lien claimant, the strategy quickly shifts from one of prevailing in the case at hand, to a scorched Earth policy for future liens.

Every day that a claim remains open, the defendant suffers: adjusters have to divert their attention to the file, the treasury has to tie up more reserves, and the defense attorneys have to bill for their time in keeping an eye on the file.

Well, lien claimants can drive the price up of the file just by obstructing its closure: necessitating additional hearings by requesting last-minute continuances; retaining or changing lien representatives; setting matters for trial and then not appearing.  The lien claimant doesn’t end up with any extra money in its pocket, but the defendant ends up paying a bill anyway.  So how strong is the defense resolve on the next lien, when the lien claimant offers the reasonable price that undercuts the litigation costs?

It’s hard to accept this, but the right thing to do, big-picture, is to continue fighting the liens.