This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/04/2021 at 06:47:43 (UTC).

SAMUEL LU VS CORE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 03/06/2020 SAMUEL LU filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against CORE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are SAMANTHA JESSNER, ANN I. JONES, DAVID J. COWAN, DAVID S. CUNNINGHAM, KEVIN C. BRAZILE and KENNETH R. FREEMAN. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******9216

  • Filing Date:

    03/06/2020

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

SAMANTHA JESSNER

ANN I. JONES

DAVID J. COWAN

DAVID S. CUNNINGHAM

KEVIN C. BRAZILE

KENNETH R. FREEMAN

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

LU SAMUEL

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

CORE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT

JACK'S GLASS & SHOWER DOORS INC.

INFANTE JOAQUIN

STAYER MICHAEL T.

CORE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT INC.

Cross Defendants, Cross Plaintiffs and Defendants

JACK'S GLASS & SHOWER DOORS INC.

INFANTE JOAQUIN

STAYER MICHAEL T.

RSR STEEL FABRICATION INC.

ALL WEST DRYWALL INC.

HYDROQUIP PUMP & DEWATERING CORP.

CORE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT INC.

HARDWOOD HABITAT INC.

JYG CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION INC.

COOK DEVELOPMENT COMPANY

PURE EFFECT INCORPORATED

PRESTIGE MASONRY & POOLS INC.

CONQUER PLUMBING INC.

NEW HORIZON TRUCKING INC.

CURTIS HOLE DRILLING

THE PACIFIC GROUP WEST INC. DBA INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

STARLITE RECLAMATION ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC.

JACKS GLASS & SHOWER DOORS

27 More Parties Available

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

NORTON TIMOTHY LAWRENCE

Defendant, Cross Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorneys

DUONG ROMAIN

VASQUEZ FRED R.

MCMAHON TIMOTHY

SLATER MATTHEW

CRESPO DANIEL A.

VAHDAT AVA

ALCANTARA GRACE E.

BEHAR JEFFREY S.

REINHOLTZ JACK R.

RHODES BRIAN W

ESCHENBURG MATTHEW

LAMPEL ARTHUR H.

MCCLAIN ROBYN

MULLEN ANDREW A.

PARKMAN SHARMILA R

JEFFERY MONA

PALIN CYNTHIA

WOOLFALL BRIAN DEREK

LENKOV JEFFREY

Court Documents

Court documents are not available for this case.

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/16/2022
  • Hearing05/16/2022 at 09:30 AM in Department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/12/2022
  • Hearing05/12/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Final Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2021
  • Hearing11/09/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 20 at 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Post-Mediation Status Conference

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/28/2021
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by Core Construction and Development Inc. (Cross-Complainant); Michael T. Stayer (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2021
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2021
  • DocketNotice of Entry of Dismissal and Proof of Service; Filed by Hydroquip Pump & Dewatering Corp. (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/25/2021
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment (/ Default rRejected); Filed by Core Construction and Development Inc. (Cross-Complainant); Michael T. Stayer (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2021
  • DocketRequest for Dismissal ([NOT ENTERED}REASONS: : 1)Cross-Defendants' names don't match the Cross-Complaint. 2) 2nd page incorrect title and case#); Filed by All West Drywall, Inc. (Cross-Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2021
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2021
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Core Construction and Development Inc. (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
217 More Docket Entries
  • 03/24/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Samuel Lu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Samuel Lu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/18/2020
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by Samuel Lu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Failure to File Proof of Service; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/11/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2020
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by Samuel Lu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2020
  • DocketSummons (on Complaint); Filed by Samuel Lu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Samuel Lu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2020
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by Samuel Lu (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/06/2020
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Unlimited Civil Case; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 20STCV09216    Hearing Date: December 17, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: December 17, 2020

Case Name: Lu v. Core Construction and Development, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV09216

Matter: Demurrer

Moving Party: Defendants Core Construction and Development, Inc. and Michael T.

Stayer

Responding Party: Plaintiff Samuel Lu


Tentative Ruling: The Demurrer is sustained as to the first cause of action to the extent

premised on the 2017 email agreement. The Demurrer is otherwise overruled. Leave to amend is to be argued.


This is an action in which Plaintiff alleges that his home was built with defects. On October 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) for (1) breach of contract, (2) negligence, (3) fraud, (4) negligent misrepresentation, (5) breach of fiduciary duty, (6) constructive fraud, and (7) equitable relief.

Defendants Core Construction and Development, Inc. and Michael T. Stayer demur to the first cause of action for failure to state sufficient facts.

The first cause of action is actually two causes of action for breach of contract because the existence and breach of two contracts is pled. The first is a written construction contract from 2012. The second is an email agreement from 2017 relating to water intrusion testing and repairs. Defendants argue the claim pertaining to the 2012 agreement is time barred. They also argue that Plaintiff has failed to plead that Defendants had any obligation under the 2017 agreement.

The statute of limitations argument is rejected because it was not previously made in Defendants’ demurrer to the First Amended Complaint. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(b) [“A party demurring to a pleading that has been amended after a demurrer to an earlier version of the pleading was sustained shall not demur to any portion of the amended complaint, cross-complaint, or answer on grounds that could have been raised by demurrer to the earlier version of the complaint, cross-complaint, or answer.”].) Nothing has changed so as to now demonstrate a statute of limitations issue.

On the other hand, it is not apparent that demurring Defendants agreed to anything for the 2017 email agreement. The 2017 email agreement consists of a string of emails. In this email chain, Plaintiff stated,

I think at this point, we would like to have an independent company come out and water test this and any other windows that we believe are leaking in accordance with appropriate ASTM or another agreed upon standard. If the water test shows no leak on a particular window, we'll pay for the test on the window. If the water test shows a leak on a particular window, you guys pay for the test on the window, you guys fix it, and you guys pay for the retest. So in other words, if we test five windows and only one of them leaks, you would pay for one test, fix the window, and pay for a re-test to confirm that the problem has been fixed.

In response to this, demurring Defendants stated, “Se[e]ms like a good idea. I have a call into Jack to review and confirm with him that he is confident with his testing. Once I speak with him I will get back to you.” Nothing else was said by demurring Defendants such that it is not apparent that they agreed to pay for testing or repairs for the subject property. Accordingly, the Demurrer is sustained as to the first cause of action to the extent premised on the 2017 email agreement. The Demurrer is otherwise overruled. Leave to amend is to be argued.

Case Number: 20STCV09216    Hearing Date: August 21, 2020    Dept: 58

Judge John P. Doyle

Department 58


Hearing Date: August 21, 2020

Case Name: Lu v. Core Construction and Development, et al.

Case No.: 20STCV09216

Matter: (1) Demurrer; Motion to Strike

(2) Demurrer

Moving Party: (1) Defendants Core Construction and Development, Inc. and Michael T.

Stayer

(2) Defendants Jack’s Glass & Shower Doors, Inc. and Joaquin Infante

Responding Party: Plaintiff Samuel Lu


Tentative Ruling: The Demurrers are sustained in part, with twenty days leave to

amend. The Motion to Strike is denied.


This is an action in which Plaintiff alleges that his home was built with defects. On May 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) breach of contract, (2) negligence, (3) fraud, (4) negligent misrepresentation, (5) breach of fiduciary duty, and (6) constructive fraud.

  1. Demurrer—Core Construction, et al.

Defendants Core Construction and Development, Inc. and Michael T. Stayer demur to the first, third, and sixth causes of action for failure to state sufficient facts.

The first cause of action is actually two causes of action for breach of contract because the existence and breach of two contracts is pled. The Demurrer is overruled as to the first cause of action to the extent premised on the January 24, 2012, Construction Contract which is attached. (FAC ¶¶ 11-19, Exhibit 1.)

On the other hand, the Demurrer is sustained as to the first cause of action to the extent premised on a 2017 email agreement. The legal effect of such agreement is unclear to the Court. The FAC provides that testing was to be performed in order to determine if repairs were necessary; if repairs were necessary, the expenses of testing and subsequent repairs would apparently be borne by Defendants Jack’s Glass & Shower Doors, Inc. and/or Joaquin Infante. (FAC ¶ 15.) But, the FAC does not make Plaintiff’s obligations under the agreement clear. Even the obligations of Defendants Core Construction and Development, Inc. and Michael T. Stayer are unclear as the FAC seems to only indicate obligations on the part of Defendants Jack’s Glass & Shower Doors, Inc. and Joaquin Infante. (FAC ¶ 15.) Thus, the Demurrer is sustained as to the first cause of action (to the extent premised on the 2017 email agreement), with twenty days leave to amend.

Next, the fraud claims are particularly pled. (FAC ¶¶ 24-34, 43-44; Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal. 4th 631, 645.) Accordingly, the Demurrer is overruled as to the third and sixth causes of action.

  1. Motion to Strike

Defendants Core Construction and Development, Inc. and Michael T. Stayer seek to strike (1) punitive damages and (2) attorneys’ fees and penalties under Bus. & Prof. § 7160.

The Motion is denied as to punitive damages because fraud is pled. (Civ. Code § 3294.)

Similarly, the Motion is denied as to penalties and fees because Bus. & Prof. § 7160 allows for such relief to the extent there is fraud in connection with an improvement contract. This is the gist of the third and sixth causes of action.

  1. Demurrer—Jack’s Glass, et al.

Defendants Jack’s Glass & Shower Doors, Inc. and Joaquin Infante demur to the first and second causes of action for uncertainty and failure to state sufficient facts.

Infante first argues these claims fail as to him because alter ego liability is not pled.

However, the FAC pleads the necessary ultimate facts for alter ego liability between Jack’s Glass & Shower Doors, Inc. and Joaquin Infante. (FAC ¶ 5; Rutherford Holding, LLC v. Plaza Del Rey (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 221, 236.) Thus, the Demurrer is overruled as to the second cause of action.

Next, Defendants argue the first cause of action fails because the terms of the subject contract are unclear.

On this point the Court agrees. The first cause of action—to the extent asserted against Defendants Jack’s Glass & Shower Doors, Inc. and Joaquin Infante—is entirely based on the aforementioned email agreement allegedly entered into by the parties in 2017. Again, the FAC does not make Plaintiff’s obligations under the agreement clear. Thus, the Demurrer is sustained as to the first cause of action, with twenty days leave to amend.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where STARLITE RECLAMATION ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where PRESTIGE MASONRY & POOLS INC. is a litigant

Latest cases where THE PACIFIC GROUP WEST INC. DBA INTEGRATED CONSTRUCTION SERVICES is a litigant