This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/07/2020 at 07:29:19 (UTC).

JOSE SANCHEZ, ET AL VS. NEW RIDGE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, ET AL

Case Summary

On 03/14/2018 JOSE SANCHEZ filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against NEW RIDGE DEVELOPMENT, LLC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Burbank Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are WILLIAM D. STEWART and JAMES R. DUNN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7766

  • Filing Date:

    03/14/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Burbank Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

WILLIAM D. STEWART

JAMES R. DUNN

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Not Classified By Court

SANCHEZ CONSTRUCTION 1

SANCHEZ CONSTRUCTION

SANCHEZ JOSE

SANCHEZ JOSE DBA SANCHEZ CONSTRUCTION DBA SANCHEZ CONSTRUCTION 1

Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Not Classified By Court

DONG CLAIRE

LAIO LANBO

NEW RIDGE DEVELOPMENT LLC

DONG YANYING

HIGGINS JOSHUA

DONG YANYING AKA CLAIRE DONG

DONG YANING AKA CLAIRE DONG

LIAO YANBO

SANCHEZ CONSTRUCTION

Defendants, Cross Defendants and Not Classified By Court

HIGGINS JOSHUA

CERRONI ANDY

GONZALEZ RUBEN J.

GONZALEZ RUBEN J

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

TURMAN ADINA T. LAW OFFICES OF

TURMAN ADINA TERESA

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

THE LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS LONCAR ESQ.

BROWN & BROWN

LONCAR NICHOLAS MILAN

BROWN TYLER HAMNETT

AMBARCHYAN VALENTINA

BELL RODNEY WILLIAM

Defendant and Cross Defendant Attorneys

BROWN & BROWN

BROWN TYLER HAMNETT

 

Court Documents

Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

10/22/2020: Notice - NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL SETTING CONFERENCE

Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

2/6/2020: Notice of Rejection - Pleadings

Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (2ND)

6/26/2018: Amended Complaint - AMENDED COMPLAINT (2ND)

Request for Judicial Notice

7/29/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Separate Statement

7/10/2019: Separate Statement

Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT/ADJUDICATION

7/10/2019: Opposition - OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT/ADJUDICATION

Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

5/14/2019: Minute Order - MINUTE ORDER (CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE)

Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF JOSE SANCHEZ IN SUPPORT OF MSJ

5/9/2019: Declaration - DECLARATION DECLARATION OF JOSE SANCHEZ IN SUPPORT OF MSJ

Opposition - Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

2/25/2019: Opposition - Opposition to Motion to Compel Further Responses to Special Interrogatories, Set One

Minute Order - Minute Order (Case Management Conference is continued to and/or)

1/3/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Case Management Conference is continued to and/or)

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Complaint filed-Summons Issued

3/14/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Complaint filed-Summons Issued

Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice of Hearing on Demurrer

4/20/2018: Legacy Document - LEGACY DOCUMENT TYPE: Notice of Hearing on Demurrer

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

6/1/2018: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-08-13 00:00:00

8/13/2018: Minute Order - Minute order entered: 2018-08-13 00:00:00

Notice of Continuance - OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

9/21/2018: Notice of Continuance - OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

12/19/2018: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

11/13/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Request For Copies

10/29/2018: Request For Copies

111 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/24/2020
  • Hearing11/24/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department A at 300 East Olive, Burbank, CA 91502; Trial Setting Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Continuance of Trial Setting Conference); Filed by Jose Sanchez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • Docketat 2:06 PM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Court Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketNotice (of Court Order Re: Mandatory Settlement Conference); Filed by Claire Dong (Defendant); Yanying Dong (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Court Order re MANDATORY SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/01/2020
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by Yanying Dong (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2020
  • DocketProof of Service - Order Granting Attorney's Motion to be Relieved as Counsel; Filed by Nicholas Milan Loncar (Attorney)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as Counsel (as to Defendant, Yanying Dong) - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2020
  • Docketat 08:30 AM in Department A, William D. Stewart, Presiding; Trial Setting Conference - Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/28/2020
  • DocketMinute Order ( (Trial Setting Conference; Hearing on Motion to be Relieved as...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
148 More Docket Entries
  • 04/10/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Sanchez Construction (Plaintiff); Jose Sanchez (Plaintiff); Sanchez Construction 1 (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Sanchez Construction (Plaintiff); Jose Sanchez (Plaintiff); Sanchez Construction 1 (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/10/2018
  • DocketProof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Sanchez Construction (Plaintiff); Jose Sanchez (Plaintiff); Sanchez Construction 1 (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • DocketAmended Complaint ((1)); Filed by Jose Sanchez (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/05/2018
  • DocketNotice (of Unavailability of Counsel); Filed by Sanchez Construction (Plaintiff); Jose Sanchez (Plaintiff); Sanchez Construction 1 (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • DocketComplaint filed-Summons Issued; Filed by Sanchez Construction (Plaintiff); Jose Sanchez (Plaintiff); Sanchez Construction 1 (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • DocketOSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/14/2018
  • DocketSummons; Filed by Sanchez Construction (Plaintiff); Jose Sanchez (Plaintiff); Sanchez Construction 1 (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: EC067766    Hearing Date: November 01, 2019    Dept: A

Sanchez v New Ridge Development

Motion for Summary Judgment

Calendar:

12

Case No.:

EC067766

Hearing Date:

November 01, 2019

Action Filed:

March 14, 2018

Trial Date:

Not Set

MP:

Defendants/Cross-Complainants New Ridge Development, LLC; Yanying Dong a/k/a Claire Dong; and Yanbo Liao

RP:

N/A

ALLEGATIONS:

This action involves the original and corrective interior and exterior construction to be performed by Plaintiff Jose Sanchez dba Sanchez Construction, and Sanchez Construction 1 (“Plaintiffs”) on 6 condominiums. The real properties at issue are known as the New Ridge Condominiums located at 681, 683, and 685 N. First Street, Arcadia, CA 91006. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants New Ridge Development, LLC (“New Ridge”), Yanying Dong aka “Claire” Dong (“Dong”), and Yanbo Liao (“Liao” and collectively the “Defendants’) were the beneficial and legal holders of title to the properties. Plaintiffs allege that on March 20, 2017, they entered into a verbal agreement with Defendants to furnish labor on the condominiums. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant Joshua Higgins (“Higgins”) represented himself as the owner of the properties and the contracting entity, Infinities Group, and that he held a contractor’s license, but Plaintiffs allege that both of these representations were false.

The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was filed on June 26, 2018, and alleges causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract; (2) Quantum Meruit; (3) Fraud in the Inducement; (4) Intentional Misrepresentation; (5) Negligent Misrepresentation; (6) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; (7) Declaratory Relief; and (8) Restitution/Unjust Enrichment.

The Defendants filed a Cross-Complaint (“XC”) as against Cross-Defendants Higgins; Ruben J. Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”); and Andy Cerroni (“Cerroni” and together the “Cross-Defendants”) on July 20, 2018, alleging six causes of action sounding in (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Conspiracy, (3) Fraud, (4) Unlicensed Contracting, (5) Equitable Indemnity, and (6) Declaratory Relief/Apportionment of Fault.

PRESENTATION:

The instant motion for summary judgment was filed by Defendants as against Cross-Defendants on the XC on July 29, 2019. No opposition has been received, nor any reply brief.

RELIEF REQUESTED:

Defendants move for judgment or adjudication on the Third and Fourth Causes of Action for Fraud and Unlicensed Contracting.

DISCUSSION:

Standard of Review – Motion for Summary Judgment – A party may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or proceeding. Code Civ. Proc. §437c(a). To prevail on a motion for summary judgment, the evidence submitted must show there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Code Civ. Proc. §437c(c). In other words, the opposing party cannot present contrary admissible evidence to raise a triable factual dispute.

“For purposes of motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication: (1) A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on that cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. The defendant or cross-defendant may not rely upon the mere allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.” Code Civ. Proc. §437c(p)(1).

When ruling on a summary judgment motion, the trial court must consider all inferences from the evidence, even those contradicted by the moving party’s evidence. The motion cannot succeed unless the evidence leaves no room for conflicting inferences as to material facts; the court has no power to weigh one inference against another or against other evidence. Murillo v. Rite Stuff Food Inc. (1998) 65 Cal. App. 4th 833, 841. In determining whether the facts give rise to a triable issue of material fact, “‘[a]ll doubts as to whether any material, triable, issues of fact exist are to be resolved in favor of the party opposing summary judgment . . . .’” Gold v. Weissman (2004) 114 Cal. App. 4th 1195, 1198-99. “In other words, the facts alleged in the evidence of the party opposing summary judgment and the reasonable inferences there from must be accepted as true.” Jackson v. County of Los Angeles (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 171, 179.

---

Third Cause of Action (Fraud)Causes of action for ‘fraud’ ‘concealment’ and ‘intentional misrepresentation’ are all causes of action sounding in “deceit based on intentional misrepresentation.” Manderville v. PCG&S Group (2007) 146 Cal. App. 4th 1486, 1498, fn. 4. As such, “[t]o establish a claim for deceit based on intentional misrepresentation, the plaintiff must prove seven essential elements: (1) the defendant represented to the plaintiff that an important fact was true; (2) that representation was false; (3) the defendant knew that the representation was false when the defendant made it, or the defendant made the representation recklessly and without regard for its truth; (4) the defendant intended that the plaintiff rely on the representation; (5) the plaintiff reasonably relied on the representation; (6) the plaintiff was harmed; and (7) the plaintiff's reliance on the defendant's representation was a substantial factor in causing that harm to the plaintiff.” Id. at 1498. On summary judgment, a plaintiff moving for adjudication must establish a prima facie right to relief by establishing that there is no material dispute as to any element in the instant cause of action.

On the Court’s review of the moving papers, Defendants have failed to establish a prima facie right to relief on the Third Cause of Action for Fraud. The Court notes that Defendants have failed to provide a factual basis for each element of the instant cause of action by failing to specifically identify what statement, made by whom, was false; how such false statement was reasonably relied upon; and how such reasonable reliance caused Defendants’ injury. Absent a clear discussion of the factual and legal basis for Defendants’ putative right to relief, supported with citations to the record, the Court cannot grant the instant motion. See Motion, pp. 6-7 (Defendants’ points and authorities fail to provide any citation to the evidentiary record. Defendants include arguments as to the liability of Cross-Defendants that do not appear to have any evidentiary support in the other documents. Defendants provide a licensing record of Infinity Builder G C, a corporation record of Infinitis Group Inc. as being owned by Higgins, several contracts, invoices, and checks – without explanation or argument as to the relevance of the documents submitted to the elements of fraud.).

Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion as to the Third Cause of Action.

---

Fourth Cause of Action (Unlicensed Contractor) – Under Bus. & Prof. Code §7031(b), “a person who utilizes the services of an unlicensed contractor may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction in this state to recover all compensation paid to the unlicensed contractor for performance of any act or contract.” This subsection was specifically added by the Legislature to enhance the available remedies in Bus. & Prof. Code §7031(a), to allow for persons using unlicensed contractors to disgorge any fees obtained by such contractors. Alatriste v. Cesar's Exterior Designs, Inc. (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 656, 666 (“‘Section 7031(b) was designed to treat persons who have utilized unlicensed contractors consistently, regardless of whether they have paid the contractor for the unlicensed work. In short, those who have not paid are protected from being sued for payment and those who have paid may recover all compensation delivered. Thus, unlicensed contractors are not able to avoid the full measure of the statutory scheme’s civil penalties by (1) requiring prepayment before undertaking the next increment of unlicensed work or (2) retaining progress payments relating to completed phases of the construction.’ [Citation.]”).

On review, Defendants have failed to identify what services were provided by Cross-Defendants that required licensure, merely asserting that Cross-Defendants services fell under some licensure requirement with anything further. Motion, pp. 9. Absent such information, the Defendants have failed to establish a prima facie right to relief.

Accordingly, the motion will be denied as to the Fourth Cause of Action.

---

RULING: DENY

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendants/Cross-Complainants New Ridge Development, LLC; Yanying Dong a/k/a Claire Dong; and Yanbo Liao’s Motion for Summary Judgment came on regularly for hearing on November 01, 2019, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION IS DENIED.

DATE: _______________ _______________________________

JUDGE