On 10/12/2017 12 GAUGE ELECTRIC INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against LESLIE GAIL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT, DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB and DEBRE KATZ WEINTRAUB. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
****6686
10/12/2017
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
MICHELLE WILLIAMS COURT
DEBRE K. WEINTRAUB
DEBRE KATZ WEINTRAUB
GAIL LESLIE
12 GAUGE ELECTRIC INC.
GAIL LESLIE SC128299
OLD REPUBLIC SURETY COMPANY SC128299
RONEN SHACHAR
SURETY INDEMNITY COMPANY SC128299
THE XLART GROUP INC. SC128299
WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY SC128299
WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY
THE XLART GROUP INC.
DOES 1 THROUGH 25
CALI PATRICIA A.
SURETEC INDEMNITY COMPANY
OLD REPUBLIC SURETY COMPANY
ITAEV GARY
PRODIGY DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION INC. ALIAS PRODIGY DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION INC.
EZRA HAIM
ZUCKER YUHUDIT ZHAVAH
ROES 1 TO 50
PATRICIA A. CALI
GOTFREDSON & ASSOCIATES
GOTFREDSON E. JAY ESQ.
GOTFREDSON E. JAY
SUTTON RAYMOND M. ESQ.
GOTFREDSON & ASSOCIATES
CHAIN BETTY STASZEK ESQ.
SUTTON ESQ. RAYMOND M.
CHAIN BETTY S. ESQ.
HAUSMAN & SOSA
CHAIN BETTY S. ATTORNEY AT LAW
SUTTON RAYMOND MARSHAL ESQ.
CHAIN BETTY STASZEK
SUTTON RAYMOND
SUTTON RAYMOND MARSHAL
GOTFREDSON E. JAY
CHAIN BETTY S. ESQ.
SUTTON RAYMOND M. ESQ.
SUTTON RAYMOND MARSHAL ESQ.
SUTTON RAYMOND
SUTTON RAYMOND MARSHAL
SUTTON RAYMOND MARSHAL
10/10/2019: Request for Dismissal
10/16/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORIES TO SHACHAR RONEN, . SET ONE; DECLARATION OF.BETTY S. CHAIN
8/7/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT ORDER) OF 08/07/2019
6/21/2019: Answer
6/19/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF TAKING DEMURRER OFF CALENDAR
6/11/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION [LESLIE GAIL'S] TO PATRICIA CALI AND SHACHAR RONEN'S DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
5/3/2019: Summons - SUMMONS ON FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
5/17/2019: Answer
4/10/2019: Reply - REPLY OF LESLIE GAIL TO XLART GROUP'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO AMEND PLEADING
4/5/2019: Memorandum - MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
3/22/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT -
5/8/2018: OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER CASE TO SANTA MONICA COURTHOUSE; DECLARATION OF RAYMOND M. SUTTON, ESQ.
6/27/2018: CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT -
6/28/2018: STIPULATION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES; ORDER THEREON
10/12/2017: RECEIPT FOR TRANSMITTED RECORD
10/12/2017: OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER OF DEFENDANT LESLIE GAIL
10/12/2017: Minute Order -
Hearing08/10/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 74 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Post-Arbitration Status Conference
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court
DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk
Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 74; Trial Setting Conference - Held - Continued
DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference)); Filed by Clerk
Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 74; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion
DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by Clerk
Docketat 10:00 AM in Department 74; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated
Docketat 08:30 AM in Department 74; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated
Docketat 10:34 AM in Department 74; Court Order
DocketReceipt; Filed by Court
DocketNotice of Incoming Transfer; Filed by Clerk
DocketNotice of Incoming Transfer; Filed by Clerk
DocketNotice of Incoming Transfer; Filed by Clerk
DocketCERTIFICATE OF MAILING
DocketAFFIDAVIT OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE
DocketCLERK'S NOTICE OF RECLASSIFICATION
DocketMinute Order
DocketSummons on Cross Complaint
DocketDefendant Leslie Gail's Cross-Complaint; Filed by Leslie Gail (Cross-Complainant)
Case Number: BC676686 Hearing Date: October 28, 2019 Dept: 74
BC676686 12 GAUGE ELECTRIC INC. VS. LESLIE GAIL
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and for Sanctions and Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories and for Sanctions
TENTATIVE RULING: The motions are granted. Ronan and Xlart are to provide further responses to special interrogatories within 20 days. Ronan is to pay plaintiff sanctions of $1740 and Xlart is to pay plaintiff sanctions of $1345 within 30 days.
Gail argues that the oppositions were untimely. She waived any issue as to the timeliness of the opposition by addressing it on the merits. (Carlton v. Quint (2000) 77 Cal. App. 4th 690, 697.)
In the replies, Gail referenced issue preclusion sanctions. They have not been considered as they were not stated in the notice of motion.
Ronan
The response to interrogatory number 15 states that a construction manager manages construction. It then details the duties of a general contractor. This is not sufficient, as “manages construction” is not a specific description fo what a construction manager is responsible for. A specific description of how construction is managed is required. Further response is ordered.
The response to interrogatory number 16 states that they discussed that she was the owner/builder and Xlart the construction manager, but no specifics of the discussion are stated. That discussion needs to be stated in detail. Further response is ordered.
Xlart
Interrogatory number 38 requests Xlart state its understanding of its responsibilities under the contract. Stating that the contract speaks for itself is not sufficient. A detailed statement of what Xlart understood its obligation to be is required. That some of the information is available in the responses to other interrogatories does not excuse the failure to properly respond to this interrogatory. Further response is ordered.
Sanctions
Gail is entitled to sanctions on both motions. Ronan is ordered to pay sanctions of $1740. Xlart is ordered to pay sanctions of $1345.
Case Number: BC676686 Hearing Date: October 24, 2019 Dept: 74
BC676686 12 GAUGE ELECTRIC INC. VS. LESLIE GAIL
Defendants Mr. Green Electric, Inc., Gary Iraev, and American Contractors Indemnity Company’s Demurrer to the Second Amended Complaint
TENTATIVE RULING: The demurrer to the first cause of action is sustained with leave to amend as to defendants Mr. Green Electric, Inc. and Gary Iraev only. The demurrer to the third cause of action is sustained without leave to amend as to defendant American Contractors Indemnity only. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 20 days.
Demurrer to the First Cause of Action for Breach of Contract
Defendants Mr. Green Electric, Inc. and Gary Iraev argue that it cannot be determined whether the contract is oral, written or implied, who the parties to the contract are, and which defendant committed which breaches, and that there is no allegation that plaintiff performed or was excused from performance.
The elements of breach of contract are the existence of contract; plaintiffs’ performance or excuse for nonperformance; defendants’ breach and resulting damage. (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. N. Y. Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.) The cause of action must state whether the contract is oral, written or implied. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (g).)
The cause of action only alleges a single construction contract. It is unclear who the parties to that contract are. There are pages of breaches, the breaching parties are not identified, nor is the specific contract breached. There is no allegation that plaintiff did not breach the contract, or as a third party beneficiary of a contract between these defendants and another party, that the other party did not breach the contract.
There is no allegation as to whether the contract or contracts alleged were oral, written or implied in fact. The demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.
Third Cause of Action for Negligence
American Contractor Indemnity Company argues that it is a surety, and not involved in construction and cannot be sued for negligence as the defendants’ surety. Plaintiff has provided no authority that a surety can be sued directly in the causes of action against its insured. The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.
Dig Deeper
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases