Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/10/2019 at 07:04:24 (UTC).

TRICOAST BUILDERS INC VS STACY BARNHISEL ET AL

Case Summary

On 01/23/2017 TRICOAST BUILDERS INC filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against STACY BARNHISEL. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is MALCOLM MACKEY. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****7811

  • Filing Date:

    01/23/2017

  • 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

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

MALCOLM MACKEY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

TRICOAST BUILDERS INC

Defendants and Respondents

DOES 1 TO 20

HABER JOSHUA

MUFG UNION BANK N.A.

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE

BARNHISEL STACY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorneys

CONNETTE MICHAEL T. ESQ.

CONNETTE MICHAEL THOMAS ESQ.

Defendant Attorneys

SESTAY JOSEPH S.

DOGARU CIPRIAN ESQ.

MURPHY EDWARD PATRICK

MARCUS DAVID MORRIS ESQ.

FORAN GLENNON PALANDECH PONZI & RUDLOFF

 

Court Documents

SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

3/9/2018: SUBSTITUTION OF ATTORNEY

NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER CONTINUING POST-ARBITRATION STATUS CONFERENCE

3/23/2018: NOTICE OF ENTRY OF ORDER CONTINUING POST-ARBITRATION STATUS CONFERENCE

Minute Order

5/25/2018: Minute Order

PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR NOTICED MOTION TO LIFT STAY ON DISCOVERY; ETC.

5/25/2018: PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR NOTICED MOTION TO LIFT STAY ON DISCOVERY; ETC.

DEFENDANT TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

7/12/2018: DEFENDANT TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

JOINDER OF DEFENDANTS STACY BARNHISEL AND JOSHUA HABER TO DEFENDANT TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

7/20/2018: JOINDER OF DEFENDANTS STACY BARNHISEL AND JOSHUA HABER TO DEFENDANT TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

DEFENDANT TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTFCTIVE ORDER

8/8/2018: DEFENDANT TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY'S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PROTFCTIVE ORDER

Minute Order

9/7/2018: Minute Order

NOTICE OF RULING RE CONTINUATION OF POST-ARBITRATION STATUS CONFERENCE

9/18/2018: NOTICE OF RULING RE CONTINUATION OF POST-ARBITRATION STATUS CONFERENCE

Motion for Order

1/10/2019: Motion for Order

Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

3/28/2019: Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore

Unknown

4/3/2019: Unknown

Notice

5/7/2019: Notice

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION

1/27/2017: NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION

DECLARATION OF CIPRIAN DOGARU REGARDING GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO MEET AND CONFER PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 430.41 PRIOR TO FILING DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

3/1/2017: DECLARATION OF CIPRIAN DOGARU REGARDING GOOD FAITH ATTEMPT TO MEET AND CONFER PURSUANT TO C.C.P. SECTION 430.41 PRIOR TO FILING DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT

Minute Order

5/4/2017: Minute Order

NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE

6/14/2017: NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPEAR BY TELEPHONE

Minute Order

8/22/2017: Minute Order

66 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 05/07/2019
  • Notice (of Entry of Judgment); Filed by Stacy Barnhisel (Defendant); Joshua Haber (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/02/2019
  • Judgment ([PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH ARBITRATION AWARD); Filed by Stacy Barnhisel (Defendant); Joshua Haber (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/08/2019
  • Motion for Reconsideration; Filed by Tricoast Builders, Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Notice (of Entry of Order Confirming Arbitration Award); Filed by Stacy Barnhisel (Defendant); Joshua Haber (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2019
  • Judgment ([PROPOSED] JUDGMENT IN CONFORMITY WITH ARBITRATION AWARD); Filed by Stacy Barnhisel (Defendant); Joshua Haber (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 55, Malcolm Mackey, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Vacate (Arbitration Award)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • at 08:30 AM in Department 55, Malcolm Mackey, Presiding; Hearing on Motion for Order (RePetition to Confirm Arbitration Award) - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Order Appointing Court Approved Reporter as Official Reporter Pro Tempore (RE LaWanna Walters-Corson, CSR #7135); Filed by Tricoast Builders, Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Hearing on Motion for Order Re: Petition to Confirm Arbitrati...)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/21/2019
  • Declaration (In Support of Defendants' Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award); Filed by Stacy Barnhisel (Defendant); Joshua Haber (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
134 More Docket Entries
  • 02/07/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Tricoast Builders, Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/02/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2017
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Tricoast Builders, Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2017
  • PROOF OF SERVICE SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2017
  • Notice of Lis Pendens; Filed by Tricoast Builders, Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/27/2017
  • NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ACTION

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2017
  • COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: (1) BREACH OF OBLIGATION TO PAY MONEY ;ETC

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2017
  • Complaint; Filed by Tricoast Builders, Inc (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/23/2017
  • SUMMONS

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC647811    Hearing Date: May 6, 2021    Dept: 55

TRICOAST BUILDERS, INC. v. BARNHISEL BC647811

Hearing Date: 5/6/21, Dept. 55

#12: MOTION TO RECONSIDER, OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR RELIEF FROM THE MARCH 30, 2021 ORDER THAT PROCEEDS IN TRUST ACCOUNT ARE TO BE PAID TO JUDGMENT CREDITORS FREE AND CLEAR OF CONNETTE LAW OFFICE`S CLAIM OF ATTORNEYS LIEN.

Notice: Okay

Opposition

MP: Judgment debtor TRICOAST BUILDERS, INC.

RP: Judgment Creditors STACY BARNHISEL AND JOSHUA HABER.

Summary

On 1/23/17, Plaintiff TRICOAST BUILDERS, INC. filed a Complaint alleging that it has not been fully paid for a work authorization agreement and home improvement agreement, after fire damage caused to the individual owner defendants’ home.

The causes of action are:

1. BREACH OF OBLIGATION TO PAY MONEY

2. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT

3. FORECLOSURE OF MECHANIC'S LIEN

4. REASONABLE VALUE OF LABOR AND MATERIALS FURNISHED.

On 5/2/19, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants STACY BARNHISEL and JOSHUA HABER and against Plaintiff TRICOAST BUILDERS, INC.

The Judgment was affirmed by unpublished appellate opinion filed 2/2/21, and the Remittitur was filed 4/20/21.

MP Positions

Moving party requests the Court to enter an order reconsidering order of March 30, 2021, in effect rejecting an attorney’s lien on money paid to Tricoast in a Ventura County Superior Court case.

The motion is made on bases including the following:

· On March 31, 2021, the suspension was lifted, and Plaintiff TriCoast Builders, Inc. as a corporate entity is now active. (Connette Decl. ¶10). This is a new fact or circumstance which was unavailable at the time of the hearing on March 24, 2021.

· Plaintiff TriCoast Builders, Inc. represents that it did and does not have an attorney fee lien in any matter. Plaintiff TriCoast Builders, Inc. represents that Connette Law Office did and does have an attorney fee lien in the matters of Fonnegra and Frederick. Fonnegra and Frederick are the matters from which Defendants are requesting funds to be transferred to Defendants despite Connette Law Office`s attorney fee lien. (Connette Decl. ¶11).

· As stated in Plaintiff TriCoast Builders, Inc.`s opposition to Defendants` Motion, neither Michael Connette nor Connette Law office are neither Plaintiff TriCoast Builders, Inc. nor represented by Plaintiff TriCoast Builders, Inc. (Connette Decl. ¶12).

· Plaintiff TriCoast Builders, Inc. represents that Michael Connette is not the owner of Plaintiff TriCoast Builders, Inc. (Connette Decl. ¶14).

· Plaintiff TriCoast Builders, Inc represents that Michael Connette made some decisions with respect to finance and legal matters, but Mr. Larry Combs and Mr. Robert Vincent, with respect to Plaintiff TriCoast Builders, Inc., were the only Presidents and Responsible Managing Officers and holders of licenses from the Contractors State Licensing Board. (Connette Decl. ¶15).

RP Positions

Opposing parties advocate denying, and an award of sanctions ($3,936), for reasons including the following:

· Rather than present new facts, or new law, moving party re-argues the same arguments that the Court previously rejected in related rulings of March 24 and 30.

· Notice of ruling was filed and served on March 24, 2021. Ten days after that order date is April 3, 2021. As to that earlier order date, Tricoast untimely filed the motion on April 9th. CCP § 1008.

· The corporate suspension was within Tricoast’s control. Thus, this is not really a new fact. Despite being suspended, the Court previously considered Tricoast’s argument on its merits.

· Tricoast and Connette cannot maintain their continuous efforts to litigate and re-litigate claims in this case without a valid contractor license. B&P Code Section 7031(a); Buzgheia v. Leasco Sierra Grove, (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 374.

· On April 6, 2021, Tricoast had sought a shortened time hearing for a stay pending reconsideration or appeal; in response, the Court set a hearing for May 6, 2021. But Tricoast never filed anything for a stay for May 6, but instead, it filed the motion for reconsideration, with a hearing date of June 28, 2021. At Tricoast’s request, the Court advanced that motion to May 6.

Tentative Ruling

The motion for reconsideration is denied.

The opposing request for sanctions is granted.

Within 30 days, moving party TRICOAST BUILDERS, INC. shall pay to opposing parties STACY BARNHISEL AND JOSHUA HABER sanctions in the sum of $3,936.00.

The Court has already considered these issues, and the only new one that could not have been raised earlier, about subsequent corporate reinstatement, is not material, because the prior matter was denied on other merits.

"A motion for reconsideration may only be brought if the party moving for reconsideration can offer 'new or different facts, circumstances, or law' which it could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the time of the prior motion.... A motion for reconsideration will be denied absent a strong showing of diligence." Forrest v. State Of Cal. Dept. Of Corps. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 202, disapproved on other grounds by Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 1164, 1172. See also Baldwin v. Home Sav. of Am. (1997) 59 Cal. App. 4th 1192, 1199 (noting that 1992 amendment to CCP §1008 tightened diligence requirements).

“[M]otions to reconsider allow the trial court to consider new facts or law relevant to its order….” Morton v. Wagner (2007) 156 Cal. App. 4th 963, 973. [Emphasis added.] Cf. also Wiz Tech., Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand (2003) 106 Cal. App. 4th 1, 17-18 (no relevant basis for reconsideration shown).

Disagreement with a ruling is not a new fact that will support the granting of a motion for reconsideration. Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500. Issues of judicial error do not support motions for relief under Code of Civil Procedure Section 473, or reconsideration, but instead the prescribed remedy is to file a notice of appeal. Lavrischeff v. Blumer (1978) 77 Cal. App. 3d 406, 411.

After entry of a final judgment, courts lack jurisdiction to rule upon a motion for reconsideration. E.g., Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 859; Sole Energy Co. v. Petrominerals Corp. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 187, 192.

Motions for reconsideration must be made within 10 days after service of written notice of entry of the order, extended under Code of Civil Procedure Section 1013(c) where service was by mail, fax or overnight delivery. Forrest v. State Of Cal. Dept. Of Corps. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 183, 203, disapproved on other grounds by Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 1164, 1172. Thus, the motion is timely as to the 3/30 order, although not the prior one.

Court orders denying requests for reconsideration are reviewed for abuse of discretion. E.g., Monroy v. City of L. A. (2008) 164 Cal. App. 4th 248, 265; County of L. A. v. James (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 253, 256; Forrest v. Dept. of Corps. (2007) 150 Cal. App. 4th 183, 204 (court did not abuse its discretion in denying … motion for reconsideration….”), disapproved on other grounds by Shalant v. Girardi (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 1164, 1172; White v. Lieberman (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 210, 219-20 (court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for reconsider that was entirely devoid of new or different facts, circumstances or law, and simply reiterated arguments made in a prior opposition.).

“Subdivision (d) of section 1008 provides that: ‘(d) A violation of this section may be punished as a contempt and with sanctions as allowed by Section 128.7.’”In re Marriage of Barthold (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1314 n.12.

Finally, Code of Civil Procedure Section 473 is not grounds for modifying, amending or revoking an order, and the requirements of Section 1008 must be satisfied. Gilberd v. AC Transit (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1494, 1500-01; Even Zohar Constr. & Remodeling, Inc. v. Bellaire Townhouses, LLC (2015) 61 Cal. 4th 830, 844.

Case Number: BC647811    Hearing Date: March 24, 2021    Dept: 55

TRICOAST BUILDERS, INC. v. BARNHISEL BC647811

Hearing Date: 3/24/21, Dept. 55

#8: MOTION FOR ORDER THAT PROCEEDS IN TRUST ACCOUNT ARE TO BE PAID TO JUDGMENT CREDITORS FREE AND CLEAR OF TRICOAST’S OWNER AND SHAREHOLDER MICHAEL CONNETTER’S BOGUS CLAIM OF ATTORNEYS LIEN.

Notice: Okay

Opposition

MP: Judgment Creditors STACY BARNHISEL AND JOSHUA HABER.

RP: Judgment debtor TRICOAST BUILDERS, INC.

Summary

On 1/23/17, Plaintiff TRICOAST BUILDERS, INC. filed a Complaint alleging that it has not been fully paid for a work authorization agreement and home improvement agreement, after fire damage caused to the individual owner defendants’ home.

The causes of action are:

1. BREACH OF OBLIGATION TO PAY MONEY

2. BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT

3. FORECLOSURE OF MECHANIC'S LIEN

4. REASONABLE VALUE OF LABOR AND MATERIALS FURNISHED.

On 5/2/19, the Court entered judgment in favor of Defendants STACY BARNHISEL and JOSHUA HABER and against Plaintiff TRICOAST BUILDERS, INC.

The Judgment was affirmed by unpublished appellate opinion filed 2/2/21.

MP Positions

Moving parties request the Court to enter an order that they can receive the funds in their attorneys Client Trust Account, free and clear of the alleged attorneys lien claim of Michael Connette, the principal of the judgment Debtor Tricoast Builders, Inc.

The motion is made on bases including the following:

· Tricoast Builders, Inc. is a suspended corporation (See Exhibit 2), and so cannot appear in Court.

· Attorney Connette’s inadmissible declaration is accompanied by no retainer agreement, no proof of any attorneys lien, which is the sole issue in this matter. He provides no authority that he doesn’t need to show an attorneys lien, any fees and costs that are owing. There is no proof of compliance with California Rules of Professional Conduct 3-300. He has testified that he is owner and officer of Defendant, which is not being its counsel.

RP Positions

Opposing party advocates denying, for reasons including the following:

· A prior attorney`s lien is superior to Defendants` judgement lien in both the Frederick and Fonnegra cases.

· The motion falsely contends that Connette is the principal of Defendant and not counsel.

· Michael Connette filed attorney lien notices in both Fonnegra and Frederick. (Motion p.5:23-25). The checks issued in the Frederick case to Defendants have Connette Law Office named as a payee as a result of the attorney lien filed in that case. The Court’s assignment order recognizes the attorney lien requiring that all checks are to include Connette Law Office as a payee. (opposition, Rothman Decl., Exhibit 1, p.2:17-21).

· Connette Law Office entered into a representation agreement with Plaintiff in compliance with California Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-300, and filed notice of its attorney lien in both the Fonnegra and Frederick cases. (Connette Decl., ¶7).

Tentative Ruling

The motion is granted, for the reasons stated.

Similar opposing arguments, made in an opposition filed 2/25/20, were already rejected by the order entered 4/15/20.

The Court resolves disputes in the evidence, and finds that opposing party is a suspended corporation, that Michael Connette has acted as corporate representative, and that his declaration is cursory, lacking in evidentiary foundation and best evidence (e.g., the alleged representation agreement), in order to show a valid attorney-client attorneys’ fees lien.

Revenue and Taxation Code "Section 23301 provides, in relevant part, 'the corporate powers, rights and privileges of a domestic taxpayer may be suspended' if it does not pay its taxes. The suspension of the corporate powers, rights, and privileges means a suspended corporation cannot sue or defend a lawsuit while its taxes remain unpaid." Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 212, 217-18.

Where evidence is in dispute, trial courts may resolve the conflicts either way and the decision will be upheld if there is substantial evidence to support a trial court's finding. Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Sup. Ct. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 733; Shadow Traffic Network v. Sup. Ct. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1067, 1082; Van de Kamp v. Bank of America (1988) 204 Cal.App.3d 819, 842.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Tricoast Builders, Inc. is a litigant

Latest cases where TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases where MUFG UNION BANK N.A. A NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION is a litigant