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.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Stanley Mosk Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
HW HELLMAN L.P.
H.W. HELLMAN LP
HW HELLMAN BUILDING LP
DOES 1 TO 100
OMGIVNING A CLIF CORP;
STEWART BRIAN K. ESQ.
CORDERO SACKS ADA RITA
MORRISON EDWARD F JR
SCHWARTZ LARRY ALEXANDER
STEWART BRIAN KEITH ESQ.
HATTI AMAR MYSORE
2/16/2018: PLAINTIFF OMGIVNING'S COMPLAINT
4/16/2018: Minute Order
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
5/16/2018: Minute Order
7/24/2018: Minute Order
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.
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
8/31/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY
9/6/2018: DECLARATION OF JOHN R BENSON REGARDING FAILURE TO APPEAR ON BEHALF OF HW HELLMAN BUILDING LP FOR HEARING JULY 24, 2018
9/28/2018: DEFENDANT HW HELLMAN BUILDING LP'S AMENDED ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
2/4/2019: Case Management Statement
2/20/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service
3/27/2019: Minute Order
5/30/2019: Minute Order
3/6/2018: NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
3/6/2018: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARING
Certificate (OF MERIT PURSUANT TO CCP 411.35); Filed by HW Hellman Building LP (Cross-Complainant)Read MoreRead Less
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
at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) (as to amended cross-complaint by Hellman) - HeldRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Case Management Conference - Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by CourtRead MoreRead Less
Minute Order ( (Hearing on Demurrer - with Motion to Strike (CCP 430.10) as t...)); Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
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
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
at 09:30 AM in Department 40; Jury Trial - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
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
at 08:30 AM in Department 40; Final Status Conference - Not Held - Advanced and VacatedRead MoreRead Less
Minute order entered: 2018-04-16 00:00:00; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF FILING PROOF OF SERVICE RE: SUMMONS, COMPLAINT, NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND OSC HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
Notice; Filed by A CLIF CORP; OMGIVNING (Cross-Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE HEARINGRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
OSC-Failure to File Proof of Serv; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
NOTICE OF CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCERead MoreRead Less
SUMMONSRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
PLAINTIFF OMGIVNING'S COMPLAINTRead MoreRead Less
Case Number: BC694332 Hearing Date: March 05, 2020 Dept: 40
MOVING PARTY: Cross-Defendants Omgivning,
Karin Liljegren, and
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:
2) Professional Negligence;
3) Breach of Contract;
4) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing;
6) Negligent Misrepresentation;
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.