comes to the enforcement of due process rights the state action requirement, of course, serves the function of protecting all persons against arbitrary or unreasonable action directly sponsored by the state. Accordingly, the requirement is obviously satisfied when the conduct amounting to a denial of due process is expressly ordered by the state. In addition, due process rights attach when the actor acts arbitrarily in the performance of a recognized state function, such as the service of process, see United States v. Wise-man, 445 F.2d 792 (2d Cir. 1971), or deprives a person of property or liberty without notice or hearing pursuant to a state law which substantially modifies private common law rights. See, e. g., Hernandez v. European Auto Collision, Inc., 487 F.2d 378 (2d Cir. 1973) (<HOLDING>), and Shirley v. State National Bank, 493 F.2d
holding a party was limited to recovery provided for by the strict terms of the mechanics lien statute holding that while the fourteenth amendment is directed against state action and not private action the state action requirement is met in a civil action where state law is applied whether by statute or common law holding that a stateauthorized private sale of an automobile in satisfaction of a mechanics lien which was not permitted at common law to be state action recognizing that it has long been the rule that a mechanics lien claim may be waived holding that the attorneys charging lien may be asserted and enforced in the civil action which gave rise to the lien claim or in an independent action