This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/09/2021 at 22:38:41 (UTC).

HELIX ELECTRIC INC VS ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 12/06/2017 HELIX ELECTRIC INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are ERNEST HIROSHIGE, ANTHONY MOHR, MAURICE A. LEITER and KENNETH R. FREEMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****5978

  • Filing Date:

    12/06/2017

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

ERNEST HIROSHIGE

ANTHONY MOHR

MAURICE A. LEITER

KENNETH R. FREEMAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs, Petitioners, Cross Defendants, Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

HELIX ELECTRIC INC.

ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC INC.

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND

TRAVELERS CASUIALTY & SURETY CO. OF AM

SIMPLEXGRINNELL LP

JENSEN HUGHES

CLARK CONSTRUCTION GROUP-CALIFORNIA LP

SKIDMORE OWINGS & MERRILL LLP

GLOW ELECTRIC COMPANY INC.

Respondents, Defendants and Plaintiffs

DOES 1 THROUGH 50

FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND

ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC INC.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

PIERCE TIMOTHY L. ESQ.

KLINGER MARILYN

KLINGER MARILYN SYDNEY

SANDERS ZACHARY

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

WORLEY KIRSTEN AIMEE

BAKER MICHAEL J. ESQ.

BAKER MICHAEL JAY

Cross Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

MCGUINNESS JOSEPH GERARD

PIERCE TIMOTHY L.

FLASHMAN JEFFREY SCOTT

 

Court Documents

Cross-Complaint

3/21/2018: Cross-Complaint

Opposition - OPPOSITION HELIX'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

6/11/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION HELIX'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF SAMIRA F. TORSHIZI IN SUPPORT OF HELIX'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

6/11/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF SAMIRA F. TORSHIZI IN SUPPORT OF HELIX'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF SAMIRA F. TORSHIZI IN SUPPORT OF CLARK'S OPPOSITION TO BELCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL

6/11/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF SAMIRA F. TORSHIZI IN SUPPORT OF CLARK'S OPPOSITION TO BELCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF SHAKIR HUSSAINI IN SUPPORT OF CLARK'S OPPOSITION TO BELCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL

6/11/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF SHAKIR HUSSAINI IN SUPPORT OF CLARK'S OPPOSITION TO BELCO'S MOTION TO COMPEL

Opposition - OPPOSITION CLARK'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION

6/11/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION CLARK'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER PRODUCTION

Separate Statement

6/11/2019: Separate Statement

Notice - NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING NONPARTY CLARKS OPPOSITION TO BELCOS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

6/12/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF ERRATA REGARDING NONPARTY CLARKS OPPOSITION TO BELCOS MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Notice - HELIX ELECTRIC, INC.S NON- OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DESIGNATE CASE AS COMPLEX

6/12/2019: Notice - HELIX ELECTRIC, INC.S NON- OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DESIGNATE CASE AS COMPLEX

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF (1) MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT FURTHER DISCOVERY; (2) MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY; (3) MOTION TO DESIGNATE CASE AS COMPLEX

6/14/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF (1) MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY (NOT FURTHER DISCOVERY; (2) MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY; (3) MOTION TO DESIGNATE CASE AS COMPLEX

Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANT ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC, INC,'S NOTICE OF POSTING PRO HAC VICE RENEWAL FEES

6/21/2019: Notice - NOTICE DEFENDANT ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC, INC,'S NOTICE OF POSTING PRO HAC VICE RENEWAL FEES

Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONTINUE HEARINGS RE ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC, INC.'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY HELIX ELECTRIC, INC. AND CLARK CONSTRUCTION

7/2/2019: Stipulation and Order - STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONTINUE HEARINGS RE ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC, INC.'S MOTIONS TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY HELIX ELECTRIC, INC. AND CLARK CONSTRUCTION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER MOTION TO DESIGNATE CASE AS COMPLEX)

7/12/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (HEARING ON MOTION FOR ORDER MOTION TO DESIGNATE CASE AS COMPLEX)

Complex Civil Case Questionnaire

8/1/2019: Complex Civil Case Questionnaire

Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

8/2/2019: Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT RULING RE COMPLEX CIVIL CASE QUESTIONNAIRE;)

8/8/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (COURT RULING RE COMPLEX CIVIL CASE QUESTIONNAIRE;)

Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT RULING RE COMPLEX CIVIL CASE QUESTIONNAIRE;) OF 08/08/2019

8/8/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FOR (COURT RULING RE COMPLEX CIVIL CASE QUESTIONNAIRE;) OF 08/08/2019

Notice - NOTICE OF MINUTE ORDER

8/13/2019: Notice - NOTICE OF MINUTE ORDER

146 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 03/21/2022
  • Hearing03/21/2022 at 09:30 AM in Department 54 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2022
  • Hearing03/11/2022 at 09:30 AM in Department 54 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2021
  • DocketNotice (of ruling on demurrer to Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc.'s Third Amended Compliant); Filed by Helix Electric, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • Docketat 09:15 AM in Department 54, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2021
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - without Motion to Strike)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/17/2021
  • Docketat 10:30 AM in Department 54, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Jury Trial (with a 20 day estimate) - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/13/2021
  • DocketReply (in support of demurrer to third amended complaint); Filed by Helix Electric, Inc. (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2021
  • Docketat 09:30 AM in Department 54, Maurice A. Leiter, Presiding; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Continued - Stipulation

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/07/2021
  • DocketMemorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/27/2021
  • DocketNotice (of Amended Case Management Order); Filed by Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
244 More Docket Entries
  • 01/11/2018
  • DocketNOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF ZACHARY SANDERS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2018
  • DocketNotice of Related Cases

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2018
  • DocketDECLARATION OF ZACHARY SANDERS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2018
  • DocketDeclaration; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2018
  • DocketNotice of Motion; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/11/2018
  • DocketNotice of Related Case; Filed by Defendant/Respondent

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/12/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • DocketHELIX ELECTRIC, INC.'S COMPLAINT FOR: (1) BREACH OF CONTRACT ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • DocketSUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/06/2017
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Helix Electric, Inc. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC685978    Hearing Date: May 20, 2021    Dept: 54

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Helix Electric, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

Case No.:

BC685978 (Consolidated with BC686594)

vs.

Tentative Ruling

Elecnor Belco Electric, Inc., et al.,

Defendants.

Hearing Date: May 20, 2021

Department 54, Judge Maurice A. Leiter

Demurrer to Third Amended Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Helix Electric, Inc.

Responding Party: Plaintiff Elecnor Belco, Inc.

T/R: HELIX’S DEMURRER TO THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION IS SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

HELIX’S DEMURRER TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION IS OVERRULED.

BELCO TO FILE AND SERVE A FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING. HELIX TO FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS THEREAFTER.

HELIX TO NOTICE.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition and reply.

BACKGROUND

This action arises out of the construction of the federal courthouse. On March 5, 2021, Elecnor Belco, Inc. filed the operative third amended complaint against Helix Electric, asserting causes of action for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (3) abandonment of contract; (4) recovery on open book account; (5) account stated; (6) reasonable value; (7) violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 7108.5; (8) fraud and deceit: concealment; and (9) recovery on payment bond.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action stated in it. (CCP § 430.50(a).) A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations. (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.) The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Id. at 732-33.) The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Id. at 733.)

Helix demurs to the third and eighth causes of action.

A. Eighth Cause of Action for Fraud

The elements of fraud are: “(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment, or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or ‘scienter’); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” (Charnay v. Cobert (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 170, 184.) In California, fraud, including negligent misrepresentation, must be pled with specificity. (Small v. Fritz Companies, Inc. (2003) 30 Cal.4th 167, 184.) “The particularity demands that a plaintiff plead facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.” (Cansino v. Bank of America (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1462, 1469.)

Helix argues that the allegations amount only to a breach of contract. Belco alleges Helix concealed various matters, including the existence of the “Drive to 35” initiative, changes to the “P100 performance requirements,” redesigns, and Helix’s involvement with Glow from Belco. (TAC ¶ 105.) Belco claims Helix concealed these facts to defraud Belco into executing “certain purported waivers and releases of claims relating to Belco’s work on the Project” and to perform extra work. (TAC ¶ 109.) Belco alleges these concealments caused Belco unnecessary work and expense.

Belco’s allegations are insufficient to establish fraud. The purported concealments and allegations of intent do not fall within the circumstances in which a breach of contract claim may be pursued as a fraud claim. (See e.g. Benavides v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co. (2006) 136 Cal. App. 4th 1241, 1252.)

The demurrer to the eighth cause of action is SUSTAINED. The Court will allow leave to amend as this is the first time the complaint has been challenged by demurrer.

B. Third Cause of Action for Abandonment of Contract

“Under the abandonment doctrine, once the parties cease to follow the contract's change order process, and the final project has become materially different from the project contracted for, the entire contract—including its notice, documentation, changes, and cost provisions—is deemed inapplicable or abandoned, and the plaintiff may recover the reasonable value for all of its work.” (Amelco Electric v. City of Thousand Oaks (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 228, 239.)

Helix asserts that the allegations of abandonment contradict other allegations in the complaint and that Belco failed to allege both parties abandoned the contract. Belco alleges: “[d]uring the Project, the extensive changes and redesigns, which were implemented while construction was already in progress, prevented Helix and Belco from consistently following, and caused Helix and Belco to dispense with and abandon, the formal Subcontract procedures for authorizing, documenting, and accounting for the costs of the material changes to Belco’s work. Indeed, throughout the Project, Helix discarded the formal Subcontract procedures and orally directed Belco to complete changed and extra work without issuing a written change order.” This is sufficient to state a cause of action for abandonment. Belco may allege alternative theories; minor contradictions do not provide grounds for sustaining a demurrer. (See Mendoza v. Rast Produce Co., Inc. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1402; Rader Co. v. Stone (1986) 178 Cal.App.3d 10, 29.)

The demurrer to the third cause of action is OVERRULED.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where ELECNOR BELCO ELECTRIC INC. A BUSINESS ENTITY is a litigant

Latest cases where Helix Electric, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where SimplexGrinnell, LP is a litigant

Latest cases where CLARK CONSTRUCTION GROUP - CALIFORNIA INC. is a litigant