This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/18/2019 at 23:15:50 (UTC).

ANGELO WANG VS AMGREEN SOLAR & ELECTRIC INC

Case Summary

On 08/31/2017 ANGELO WANG filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against AMGREEN SOLAR ELECTRIC INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Norwalk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are MARGARET M. BERNAL, MASTER CALENDAR, LORI ANN FOURNIER and MARGARET MILLER BERNAL. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6536

  • Filing Date:

    08/31/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Norwalk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

MARGARET M. BERNAL

MASTER CALENDAR

LORI ANN FOURNIER

MARGARET MILLER BERNAL

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

WANG ANGELO

Defendants

AMGREEN SOLAR & ELECTRIC INC. A

GREENSKY INC. A FLORIDA CORPORATION

KIM JOSEPH

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER ENGELS

ENGELS CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL

Defendant Attorneys

JK LAW FIRM APC

JAMES B. KROPFF ESQ.

HEATH JOHN D.

KWON JEAN

KROPFF JAMES BRUCE

 

Court Documents

Summons

8/31/2017: Summons

Unknown

1/18/2018: Unknown

Unknown

1/24/2018: Unknown

Case Management Statement

3/21/2018: Case Management Statement

Unknown

4/2/2018: Unknown

Unknown

6/27/2018: Unknown

Unknown

7/16/2018: Unknown

Unknown

7/16/2018: Unknown

Unknown

9/4/2018: Unknown

Minute Order

9/11/2018: Minute Order

Unknown

9/11/2018: Unknown

Notice of Ruling

12/3/2018: Notice of Ruling

Minute Order

4/9/2019: Minute Order

Notice

5/6/2019: Notice

Reply

5/14/2019: Reply

Ex Parte Application

5/31/2019: Ex Parte Application

Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

6/3/2019: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees

Minute Order

6/6/2019: Minute Order

88 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/17/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Jury Trial ((time estimate for trial is 3-5 days)) - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/11/2019
  • answer to Fourth Amended Complaint; Filed by AMGREEN SOLAR & ELECTRIC INC., a (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC) - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/07/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Order to Show Cause Re: (as to why sanctions should not be imposed against the plaintiff for their failure to appear at the mandatory settlement conference on 6/3/2019;) - Not Held - Continued - Party's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department F, Margaret Miller Bernal, Presiding; Hearing on Ex Parte Application (To Vacate Trial Date and Related Dates and Sanctions) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/06/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Ex Parte Application To Vacate Trial Date and Rela...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Declaration (In response to OSC); Filed by AMGREEN SOLAR & ELECTRIC INC., a (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Reply (to defendants opposition to plaintiffs ex parte motion to vacate trial dates and related dates); Filed by ANGELO WANG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2019
  • Declaration (Re: Refusal to Cooperate in Pretrial Process); Filed by AMGREEN SOLAR & ELECTRIC INC., a (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
165 More Docket Entries
  • 09/25/2017
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by ANGELO WANG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2017
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl; Filed by ANGELO WANG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/25/2017
  • Rtn of Service of Summons & Compl (BY PERSONAL SERVICE ON 09/15/17 ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2017
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2017
  • Summons; Filed by Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by ANGELO WANG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2017
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by ANGELO WANG (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2017
  • Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2017
  • Summons Filed; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2017
  • Complaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: VC066536    Hearing Date: January 30, 2020    Dept: SEC

WANG v. AMGREEN SOLAR & ELECTRIC, INC.

CASE NO.: VC066536

HEARING: 01/30/2020

JUDGE: MARGARET M. BERNAL

#11

TENTATIVE ORDER

I. Defendant AMGREEN SOLAR & ELECTRIC, INC.’s demurrer to Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint is OVERRULED. C.C.P. § 430.10(e).

II. Defendant AMGREEN SOLAR & ELECTRIC, INC.’s motion to strike portions of Plaintiff’s Fifth Amended Complaint is DENIED.

Opposing Party to Give Notice.

This action for contractual fraud was filed by Plaintiff ANGELO WANG on August 31, 2017. Plaintiff alleges “WANG hired AMGREEN SOLAR & ELECTRIC…to perform home improvement work and repairs of certain real property located at 21438 Wardham Avenue, Lakewood, CA, 90715 in the City of Lakewood, County of Los Angeles, State of California (referred to herein as ‘PROJECT’).” (5AC ¶2.) “WANG is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, that from the start date of the PROJECT through the present date, Defendants made inspections, investigations, concealed by temporary repairs, and did not reveal, disclose, or inform WANG various building deficiencies and defective conditions of the PROJECT that were observed and/or discovered during inspections, investigations, and temporary repairs conducted by the Defendants and did not disclose budgetary deficiencies in the WANG budget and/or contract, and WANG reasonably relied on the implied and express representations by Defendants that the PROJECT was adequately reserved and free from building standard deficiencies, defective conditions, construction or design defects, premature and unreasonable deterioration of the improvements at the PROJECT and was constructed with applicable building standard.” (5AC ¶12.) Plaintiff further alleges, “During the construction of the PROJECT, AMGREEN Defendants promised, agreed to, and did make some repairs to the PROJECT, but failed to provide WANG with accurate and complete information about the repairs, assuring WANG that any and all building standard violations were incidental anomalies and not systematic and widespread, and concealing, either intentionally or negligently, the true conditions. In so doing, WANG reasonably relied on said promises agreements and repairs and thereby deferred the filing of this action.” (5AC ¶13.)

Plaintiff’s 5AC, filed on July 1, 2019, asserts the following causes of action: (1) Negligence; (2) Fraud – Intentional Misrepresentation; (3) Violation of Business and Professional Code §7160; and (4) Fraud – Negligent Misrepresentation

Defendant AMGREEN SOLAR & ELECTRIC, INC. (“Defendant”) demurs to Plaintiff’s first through fourth causes of action pursuant to CCP §430.10(e) and (f).

Uncertainty

Demurrers on grounds of uncertainty are strictly construed and will not be sustained unless the complaint is so bad that the defendant/moving party cannot reasonably respond. (Khoury v. Maly’s of California (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Here, the 5AC is not so uncertain that Defendant cannot reasonably respond. The demurrer is not sustained on the basis of uncertainty.

First Cause of Action – Negligence

The elements of negligence are duty, breach, causation, and damages. (See e.g., County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 292, 318.)

Here, Plaintiff adequately alleges a claim for general negligence against Defendant for purposes of surviving demurrer. (See 5AC ¶¶21-30.) The demurrer to the first cause of action is overruled.

Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action – Fraud (Intentional Misrepresentation, Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code §7160, and Negligent Misrepresentation)

The elements of a cause of action for intentional misrepresentation are 1) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); 2) knowledge of falsity (scienter); 3) intent to defraud or induce reliance; 4) justifiable reliance; and 5) damages. (See Cal. Civ. Code §1709.)

The elements for a claim of negligent misrepresentation are: (1)The defendant must have made a representation as to a past or existing material fact; (2) the representation must have been untrue; (3) regardless of his actual belief the defendant must have made the representation without any reasonable ground for believing it to be true; (4) the representation must have been made with the intent to induce plaintiff to rely upon it; (5) the plaintiff must have been unaware of the falsity of the representation; he must have acted in reliance upon the truth of the representation and he must have been justified in relying upon the representation; (6) and, finally, as a result of his reliance upon the truth of the representation, the plaintiff must have sustained damage. (Continental Airlines, Inc. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1989) 216 Cal. App. 3d 388, 402.)

Any person who is induced to contract for a work of improvement, including but not limited to a home improvement, in reliance on false or fraudulent representations or false statements knowingly made, may sue and recover from such contractor or solicitor a penalty of five hundred dollars ($500), plus reasonable attorney’s fees, in addition to any damages sustained by him by reason of such statements or representations made by the contractor or solicitor. (B&P Code §7160.)

Whether intentional or negligent in nature, fraud actions are subject to strict requirements of particularity in pleading. (Committee on Childrens Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 216.) Fraud must be pleaded with specificity rather than with general and conclusory allegations. (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 184.) The specificity requirement means a plaintiff must allege facts showing how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were made, and, in the case of a corporate defendant, the plaintiff must allege the names of the persons who made the representations, their authority to speak on behalf of the corporation, to whom they spoke, what they said or wrote, and when the representation was made. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.)

¶¶ 34 and 36 allege that on 12/26/15, Kim, an agent of Amgreen, made representations in writing and orally to Wang, regarding the installation of a working photovoltaic system, Enphase Micro Inverters, and roofing repair. ¶¶42-46 allege scienter, intent to defraud, and reliance. ¶ 48 alleges resulting damages. Plaintiff also alleges that Kim misrepresented to Defendant SKY and Plaintiff, that Plaintiff signed the HIC Agreement. (5AC ¶50.) Plaintiff further alleges that he did not, in fact, sign the HIC agreement. (5AC ¶51.) Plaintiff alleges that Kim intended for Plaintiff to rely on this misrepresentation so that Kim could complete a “sale of work” and have Amgreen compensated for the work on the Project. (5AC ¶54.)

Plaintiff has adequately alleged fraud as to the photovoltaic system, Enphase Micro Inverters, roofing repair, and forgery misrepresentations.

The demurrer to the second, third, and fourth causes of action is overruled.

Motion to Strike

A motion to strike lies either when (1) there is “irrelevant, false or improper matter inserted in any pleading”; or (2) to strike any pleading or part thereof “not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule or order of court.” (CCP §436.)

The Motion to strike attorney’s fees is denied. Plaintiff has alleged a statutory entitlement to attorney’s fees under B&P Code §7160. Similarly, the Motion to Strike Punitive Damages is also denied. Plaintiff has adequately alleged causes of action sounding in fraud.

The Motion to Strike “allegations of the third cause of action” and “paragraphs 12 through 16 of the FAC” is denied. Defendant argues that these allegations are “irrelevant” and/or mere “surplusage”. However, to make such findings would involve factual determinations. The Court cannot make factual determinations in response to a Motion to Strike. (See Aubry v. Tri-City Hosp. Dist. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967.) The Court must accept the factual allegations set forth in the 5AC as true at this stage in the litigation.

Case Number: VC066536    Hearing Date: December 04, 2019    Dept: SEC

WANG v. AMGREEN SOLAR AND ELECTRIC, INC., et al.

CASE NO.: VC066536

HEARING: 12/4/19

#11

TENTATIVE ORDER

Defense counsels, Jean Kwon and JK Law Firm, APC’s motion to be relieved as counsels for AmGreen Solar and Electric, Inc. is GRANTED. The order shall take effect when the proof of service of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defense counsels, Jean Kwon and JK Law Firm, APC move to be relieved as counsels for AmGreen Solar and Electric, Inc.

Good cause exists to grant the motion based on any of the grounds under Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 3-700(C). Rule 3-700(c) provides that an attorney may withdraw based on any of the following: (1) The client (a) insists upon presenting a claim or defense that is not warranted under existing law and cannot be supported by good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or (b) seeks to pursue an illegal course of conduct, or (c) insists that the member pursue a course of conduct that is illegal or that is prohibited under these rules or the State Bar Act, or (d) by other conduct renders it unreasonably difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively, or (e) insists, in a matter not pending before a tribunal, that the member engage in conduct that is contrary to the judgment and advice of the member but not prohibited under these rules or the State Bar Act, or (f) breaches an agreement or obligation to the member as to expenses or fees. (2) The continued employment is likely to result in a violation of these rules or of the State Bar Act; or (3) the inability to work with co-counsel indicates that the best interests of the client likely will be served by withdrawal; or (4) The member's mental or physical condition renders it difficult for the member to carry out the employment effectively; or (5) The client knowingly and freely assents to termination of the employment; or (6) The member believes in good faith, in a proceeding pending before a tribunal, that the tribunal will find the existence of other good cause for withdrawal.

The attorney declaration demonstrates good cause for withdrawal based on a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. The client was served by mail at his last known address, which was confirmed to be current within the past 30 days.

The motion is GRANTED. The order shall take effect when the proof of service of the signed order on the client has been filed with the court.