Sukut Construction, Inc. v. Rimrock CA
131 Cal. Rptr. 3d 874
Cal. Ct. App.2011Background
- Sukut appeals a summary adjudication dismissing its foreclosure action on a mechanic’s lien against Rimrock and Otay for Quarry work.
- Sukut claimed Quarry operations constituted a mining claim to support a mining lien under Civil Code section 3060 for surface mining of aggregate materials.
- Quarry is operated by Rimrock in Chula Vista and produced rock aggregate used in construction; rocks were extracted by blasting from ground surface.
- The trial court ruled Quarry was not a mine and dismissed Sukut’s 3060 mining lien claims; Sukut was later awarded breach of contract damages in a stipulated judgment.
- Sukut argued in opposition to demurrer that the lien could be a mining lien under 3060; the court found no triable issue showing minerals were extracted.
- On appeal, Sukut argued alternative enforcement under section 3110 and 3106; Otay and Rimrock invoked judicial estoppel to bar this argument.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Quarry is a mining claim under 3060 | Sukut: Quarry constitutes a mine; minerals extracted include aggregate material. | Otay/Rimrock: Quarry is not a mine; no minerals extracted, so no 3060 lien. | Quarry is not a mining claim; 3060 lien not available. |
| Whether Sukut could foreclose a mechanical lien under 3110 in the alternative | Sukut: 3110 applies as labor, materials, and services furnished on a quarry work of improvement. | Rimrock/Otay: Sukut first asserted 3060; 3110 improper given the opposite position and lack of a qualifying work of improvement. | Court did not need to decide 3110 given other rulings and estoppel. |
| Whether judicial estoppel bars Sukut from pursuing 3110 | Sukut: no estoppel; positions were not inconsistent or misrepresented intentionally. | Defendants: Sukut took inconsistent positions by opposing 3060 and later seeking 3110. | Sukut is judicially estopped from asserting a 3110 lien. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. S. C. Mining Association, 66 Cal. 193 (Cal. 1884) (defines 'mining claim' as right of possession to vein or lode and adjoining surface)
- Marvel v. Merritt, 116 U.S. 11 (U.S. Supreme Court 1885) (distinguishes quarry from mine; discusses mineral/deposit concepts)
- In re Kelso, 147 Cal. 609 (Cal. 1905) (distinguishes quarry from mine in defining minerals/mining context)
- Bambauer v. Menjoulet, 214 Cal.App.2d 871 (Cal. App. Dist. 1963) (gravel not a mineral; discusses mineral definition scope)
- Hansen Brothers Enterprises, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors, 12 Cal.4th 533 (Cal. 1996) (recognizes quarrying terminology and mining concepts; discusses zoning context)
- Accord v. Hayward Lumber Co. v. Starley, 124 Cal.App.2d 283 (Cal. App. 2d 1932) (principle that lien claims are strictly construed; remedial enforcement liberally construed)
- The Swahn Group, Inc. v. Segal, 183 Cal.App.4th 831 (Cal. App. 4th 2010) (judicial estoppel uses to prevent ‘fast and loose’ with courts)
- Holm v. Bramwell, 20 Cal.App.2d 332 (Cal. App. 2d 1937) (mechanic’s lien right depends on strict statutory compliance)
- Morse v. De Ardo, 107 Cal. 622 (Cal. 1895) (strict construction principle for lien creation)