Judge James A. Mangione, Case Number: 37-2022-00037552-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2022-00037552-CU-BC-CTL, Date: 2024-05-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 17, 2024

05/17/2024 09:00:00 AM C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil) 37-2022-00037552-CU-BC-CTL MILES VS C D C CONSTRUCTION INC [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants Vernon Edward Watts and S&W General Contractor's Motion for Summary Judgment, or, in the Alternative, Summary Adjudication is granted in part and denied in part.

The moving party on a motion for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) If satisfied, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make his or her own prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of fact. (Id.) 'There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.' (Id.) When a party opposing summary judgment fails to include a separate statement or the separate statement fails to unequivocally state which facts are disputed, the facts in the moving party's separate statement are deemed undisputed. (Thompson v. Ioane (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1180, 1186 n.4 (citing Carolyn v. Orange Park Community Assn. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1090, 1094).) As an initial matter, the instant motion seeks summary judgment/adjudication of all fifteen causes of action raised in Plaintiffs' complaint. However, Defendant Vernon Edward Watts ('Watts') and S&W General Contractor ('Contractor') (collectively, 'Defendants') are not named as Defendants in the second and fourteenth causes of action and cannot seek summary adjudication on these claims.

Therefore, the motion is denied as to the second and fourteenth causes of action.

Excepting unjust enrichment, Defendants' arguments fall into two main categories: they (1) are not parties to the contract at issue and (2) did not perform any work on the house. The Court will address each in turn. Furthermore, because Contractor's potential liability is dependent upon Watts's potential liability, the Court analyzes the arguments as to Watts only unless otherwise specified.

Contract Claims To resolve the causes of action related to the contract, the Court must first identify the contract at issue.

'The materiality of a disputed fact is measured by the pleadings, which set the boundaries of the issues to be resolved at summary judgment.' (Conroy v. Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1250 (citations and quotation marks omitted).) First, Fourth and Sixth through Ninth Causes of Action As alleged in the Complaint, the contract consists of an unsigned quote and change orders from Carlos Chavez and CDC Construction, Inc. and 'was accepted by Defendants' performance and Plaintiffs' [first] payment' of $30,000. (Compl. � 19 & Ex. A.) Despite this, briefing on this motion focused on a written Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3105526 10 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: MILES VS C D C CONSTRUCTION INC [IMAGED] 37-2022-00037552-CU-BC-CTL contract between Plaintiff Jamar Miles ('Jamar') and CDC Construction, Inc. ('CDC'), executed on February 12, 2022. (ROA 157, Ex. 2.) The parties dispute whether that agreement was signed by Watts or Defendant Carlos Chavez ('Chavez'). However, there is no dispute that the contract was negotiated between Plaintiffs and Chavez. Furthermore, even assuming that Watts signed the February 12 contract, there is no dispute that the contract was executed by Plaintiffs and CDC. As such, there is no basis for liability against Watts or Contractor for the breach of contract, warranty and good faith and fair dealing causes of action. Therefore, summary adjudication of these claims is granted.

Eleventh and Twelfth Causes of Action The intentional and/or negligent misrepresentations alleged in the Complaint were made by Chavez on behalf of Defendants, Chavez and CDC. However, as discussed above, the contract was negotiated by Chavez and executed/performed by CDC. The Complaint does not identify any statements made by Watts and relied upon by Plaintiffs. Indeed, Plaintiffs and Watts were first introduced on May 3, 2024-after the alleged misrepresentations were made. Therefore, summary adjudication is granted on these causes of action.

Thirteenth Cause of Action Plaintiffs' intentional infliction of emotional distress claim is premised on the alleged misrepresentations and negligent construction work. As discussed above, Plaintiffs have not identified any misrepresentations attributable to Watts. Therefore, this cannot be the basis of an emotional distress claim against him. Furthermore, emotional distress damages are not recoverable for negligent construction claims. (Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543, 557.) Therefore, summary adjudication is granted on this claim.

Work Performance (Third, Fifth and Tenth Causes of Action) As already discussed, it is undisputed that the work was completed by CDC. There is no evidence Watts personally performed any of the construction work or visited the property prior to the inspection on May 3, 2024. Therefore, summary adjudication is granted on these claims.

Unjust Enrichment No admissible evidence has been presented to support a finding that Watts or Contractor received any payment or benefit in connection with the construction work alleged in the Complaint. Therefore, summary adjudication of this claim is granted.

Because the Court's decision does not rely on evidence objected to by Defendants, the Court need not rule on the objections. All requests for judicial notice are granted.

In sum, summary adjudication is granted as to the First, Third through Thirteenth and Fifteenth causes of action. As no other causes of action are asserted against Defendants, judgment is granted in their favor.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3105526 10