This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/17/2019 at 01:06:44 (UTC).

OMGIVNING VS HW HELLMAN BUILDING LP

Case Summary

On 02/16/2018 OMGIVNING filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against HW HELLMAN BUILDING LP. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****4332

  • Filing Date:

    02/16/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

 

Party Details

Plaintiff, Petitioner and Not Yet Classified

OMGIVNING

Defendants, Respondents and Cross Plaintiffs

HW HELLMAN L.P.

H.W. HELLMAN LP

HW HELLMAN BUILDING LP

DOES 1 TO 100

Cross Defendants

LILJEGREN KARIN

HAN VINCENT

VASQUEZ ROBERTO

PINHUALT ALICE

GIFFIN JONATHAN

INIQUEZ BOLIVAR

OMGIVNING A CLIF CORP;

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

STEWART BRIAN K. ESQ.

Defendant Attorney

CORDERO SACKS ADA RITA

Cross Defendant Attorneys

MORRISON EDWARD F JR

SCHWARTZ LARRY ALEXANDER

STEWART BRIAN KEITH ESQ.

HATTI AMAR MYSORE

 

Court Documents

PLAINTIFF OMGIVNING'S COMPLAINT

2/16/2018: PLAINTIFF OMGIVNING'S COMPLAINT

Minute Order

4/16/2018: Minute Order

ANSWER AND CROSS COMPLAINT TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR: I FORECLOSURF OF MECHANICS LIEN; 2. BREACH OF CONTRACT; 3. QUANTUM MFRIJIT; AND 4. DECLARATORY RELIEF; AND CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE 2

5/15/2018: ANSWER AND CROSS COMPLAINT TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR: I FORECLOSURF OF MECHANICS LIEN; 2. BREACH OF CONTRACT; 3. QUANTUM MFRIJIT; AND 4. DECLARATORY RELIEF; AND CROSS-COMPLAINT FOR: 1. NEGLIGENCE 2

Minute Order

5/16/2018: Minute Order

Minute Order

7/24/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER BY OMGIVNING TO ANSWER/CROSS-COMPLAINT OF HW HELLMAN BUILDING LP; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; ETC.

8/30/2018: NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER BY OMGIVNING TO ANSWER/CROSS-COMPLAINT OF HW HELLMAN BUILDING LP; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; ETC.

DECLARATION OF EDWARD F. MORRISON, JR. PER CODE OF CIVIL. PROCEDURE ?435.5 RE MEET AND CONFER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE OF OMG1VNING REQUEST FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SET FORTH IN ANSWER/CROSS-COMPLAI

8/30/2018: DECLARATION OF EDWARD F. MORRISON, JR. PER CODE OF CIVIL. PROCEDURE ?435.5 RE MEET AND CONFER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STRIKE OF OMG1VNING REQUEST FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES SET FORTH IN ANSWER/CROSS-COMPLAI

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

8/31/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

DECLARATION OF JOHN R BENSON REGARDING FAILURE TO APPEAR ON BEHALF OF HW HELLMAN BUILDING LP FOR HEARING JULY 24, 2018

9/6/2018: DECLARATION OF JOHN R BENSON REGARDING FAILURE TO APPEAR ON BEHALF OF HW HELLMAN BUILDING LP FOR HEARING JULY 24, 2018

DEFENDANT HW HELLMAN BUILDING LP'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

9/28/2018: DEFENDANT HW HELLMAN BUILDING LP'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Case Management Statement

2/4/2019: Case Management Statement

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

2/20/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Minute Order

3/27/2019: Minute Order

Declaration

4/5/2019: Declaration

Minute Order

5/30/2019: Minute Order

Notice

5/31/2019: Notice

NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

3/6/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

3/6/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

34 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/18/2019
  • Certificate (OF MERIT PURSUANT TO CCP 411.35); Filed by HW Hellman Building LP (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/31/2019
  • Notice (OF RULING RE DEMURRER TO HELLMAN'S CROSS-COMPLAINT; SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND); Filed by HW Hellman Building LP (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) (as to amended cross-complaint by Hellman) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/30/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) as t...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/28/2019
  • Reply (Notice Re Cross-Defendants Omgivning, Bolivar Iniquez, Roberto Vasquez, Karin Liljegren and Jonathan Giffin's Combined Reply to the Combined Opposition to their Demurrers to the First Amended Cross-Complaint of HW Hellman Building, LP); Filed by A CLIF CORP; OMGIVNING (Cross-Defendant); ROBERTO VASQUEZ (Cross-Defendant); KARIN LILJEGREN (Cross-Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/20/2019
  • Reply (to the CROSS-DEFENDANTS BOLIVAR INIQUEZ, ROBERTO VASQUEZ, KARIN LILJEGREN AND JONATHAN GIFFIN'S COMBINED REPLY TO THE COMBINED OPPOSITION TO THEIR DEMURRERS TO THE FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT OF HW HELLMAN BUILDING, LP); Filed by JONATHAN GIFFIN (Cross-Defendant); BOLIVAR INIQUEZ (Cross-Defendant); KARIN LILJEGREN (Cross-Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • at 09:30 AM in Department 40; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2019
  • Opposition (HW Hellman Building, LP's Combined Opposition to Demurrers to First Amended Cross-Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities); Filed by HW Hellman Building LP (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and Vacated

    Read MoreRead Less
72 More Docket Entries
  • 04/16/2018
  • Minute order entered: 2018-04-16 00:00:00; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2018
  • NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICE RE: SUMMONS, COMPLAINT, NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND OSC HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/13/2018
  • Notice; Filed by A CLIF CORP; OMGIVNING (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2018
  • NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/16/2018
  • PLAINTIFF OMGIVNING'S COMPLAINT

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC694332    Hearing Date: March 05, 2020    Dept: 40

MOVING PARTY: Cross-Defendants Omgivning,

Bolivar Iniquez,

Roberto Vasquez,

Karin Liljegren, and

Jonathan Giffin

OPPOSITION: Cross-Complainant HW Hellman Building LP

Omgivning, a corporation, sues HW Hellman Building LP, (“Hellman") for damages, alleging that they had agreements with Hellman to provide architecture, design, and construction administration services for an adaptive reuse project. Adaptive reuse refers to the practice of reusing an old building for a purpose other than that which it was built for. Omgivning alleges that Hellman failed to pay them what was owed under the agreements.

Hellman’s second amended cross-complaint (“SACC”) against Cross-Defendants for:

1) Negligence;

2) Professional Negligence;

3) Breach of Contract;

4) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;

5) Fraud/Misrepresentation;

6) Negligent Misrepresentation;

7) Fraud/Inducement.

Hellman sues Cross-Defendants Omgivning, Karin Liljegren, Bolivar Iniquez, Roberto Vasquez, and Jonathan Giffin (collectively, “Cross-Defendants”). Hellman alleges that Liljegren is the alter ego of Omgivning and that the other cross-defendants are agents or employees of Omgivning. Hellman alleges that Cross-Defendants performed their duties negligently and committed fraud via overbilling.

Cross-Defendants bring this opposed demurrer to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh causes of action of Hellman’s SACC.

Fourth Cause of Action, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith: OVERRULED.

The elements of breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing are: (1) existence of a contractual relationship; (2) implied duty; (3) breach; and (4) causation of damages. Smith v. San Francisco (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 38, 49.

Cross-Defendants argue that Hellman’s good faith claim is duplicative of the breach of contract claim. Cross-Defendants argue that all that Hellman alleges is that they overbilled him which is merely a breach of contract claim. Cross-Defendants cite to Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business Credit, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1395, in which the court stated that “If the allegations do not go beyond the statement of a mere contract breach and, relying on the same alleged acts, simply seek the same damages or other relief already claimed in a companion contract cause of action, they may be disregarded as superfluous as no additional claim is actually stated.”

Conversely, Hellman cites to Carma Developers, Inc. v. Marathon Development California, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal. 4th 342, 372-373, which states that the covenant applies where a contract confers on one party a discretionary power affecting the rights of the other and in those situations the party in control must act in good faith. Thus, “[a] party violates the covenant if it subjectively lacks belief in the validity of its act or if its conduct is objectively unreasonable.” (Id. at p. 162.) Hellman argues that Cross-Defendants used the discretionary power granted to them in the agreements to overbill.

The Court finds that Hellman has sufficiently alleged this claim. Hellman argues that Cross-Defendants breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by 1) negligently designing defective plans; (2) unjustifiably billing them for unnecessary work; and (3) proceeding to work over-budget with Hellman’s funding. The Court finds that the first and last allegations are merely breach of contract claims because all they allege is that Cross-Defendants violated express terms of the agreement. However, there is merit to the billing allegation. (SACC, ¶¶ 13-14.) To state a claim, a plaintiff must allege “a conscious and deliberate act, which unfairly frustrates the agreed common purposes and disappoints the reasonable expectations of the other party thereby depriving that party of the benefits of the agreement.” (Careau, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1395.) The Court finds that Hellman has alleged a deliberate act, overbilling, and that is sufficient for the purposes of a demurrer.

Fifth Cause of Action, Fraud/Misrepresentation: OVERRULED.

The elements of fraud 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. Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal. App. 3d 59, 72-73. Fraud actions are subject to strict requirements of particularity in pleading. Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 216. A plaintiff must allege what was said, by whom, in what manner (i.e. oral or in writing), when, and, in the case of a corporate defendant, under what authority to bind the corporation. Goldrich v. Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 772, 782.

Cross-Defendants argue that Hellman has not alleged the required fraudulent intent. Hellman alleges that Cross-Defendants “submitted billing and/or invoices that were not only intentionally inflated, but did not accurately reflect work done and/or services performed” and “the billing/invoices were intentionally false, the employees knew the invoices were false, but submitted them nonetheless.” (SACC, ¶¶ 14(b) and 14(e).)

The Court finds that Hellman has sufficiently alleged this claim. Overbilling itself is not inherently fraud but intentional overbilling is. Whether intentional overbilling occurred in this matter is a question of fact.

Sixth Cause of Action, Negligent Misrepresentation: OVERRULED.

“The elements of negligent misrepresentation are the same [as fraud] except for the second element, which for negligent misrepresentation is the defendant made the representation without reasonable ground for believing it to be true.” West v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 780, 792.

As the Court has found that Hellman has alleged that intentional misrepresentations were made, it follows that Cross-Defendants made the misrepresentations without reasonable ground for believing them to be true.

Seventh Cause of Action, Fraud/Inducement: OVERRULED.

The elements of this cause of action are the same as for the fraud/misrepresentation claim.

Cross-Defendants argue that Hellman only alleges that they were previously using a different architect and that Cross-Defendants induced them to change to Omgivning because they represented that they could do a better job. (SACC, ¶ 62.) Cross-Defendants also argue that Hellman’s allegations that they submitted a low bid intending to charge them more later is conclusory. Hellman alleges that Cross-Defendants induced them into entering the service agreements by underbidding. (SACC, ¶¶ 67-68.)

The Court finds that Hellman has sufficiently alleged that they were induced by Cross-Defendants to enter into the agreements by underbidding.

Conclusion: Cross-Defendants’ demurrer to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh causes of action is OVERRULED.