Judge: Joseph Lipner, Case: 24STLC05552, Date: 2025-03-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STLC05552 Hearing Date: March 25, 2025 Dept: 72
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT 72
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
COASTLINE POOLS AND CONSTRUCTION, Plaintiff, v. RIVA KNOBLOCH, et al., Defendants. |
Case No:
24STLC05552 Hearing Date: March 25, 2025 Calendar Number: 7 |
Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Coastline Pools and
Construction dba Coastline Pools, Inc. (“Coastline”) demurs to the third
through eighth or ninth claims in the First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”)
filed by Defendants and Cross-Complainants Riva Knobloch aka Riva Reznick
(“Riva”) and Andrew Bernard Knobloch (“Andrew”) and Riva Lisa Reznick, Trustees
of the Knobloch Reznick Family Trust Dated January 5, 2024 (“Trustees”)
(collectively, “Defendants”). (The Court uses the parties’ first names for
clarity only, and means no disrespect.)
The Court OVERRULES the demurrer to the fourth, fifth, and
ninth claims.
The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer with respect to the third
claim WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Defendants
may amend within 20 days.
The Court SUSTAINS the demurrer to the sixth, seventh, and
eighth claims WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.
This is a contract dispute relating to the construction of a
pool at Defendants’ house. The following facts are taken from the allegations
of the FACC, which the Court accepts as true for the purposes of the demurrer.
Defendants Riva Knobloch and Andrew Knobloch (collectively,
the “Knoblochs”) are married and own the property located at 3149 Conquista
Avenue, Long Beach, California 90808 (the “Property”).
In April 2022, Defendants met with Coastline’s sales agent,
Cross-Defendant Ryan Bird (“Bird”) regarding building a swimming pool.
On August 12, 2022, Coastline and the Knoblochs entered into
a written construction contract (the “Contract”) for the construction of a new
swimming pool at the Property.
During the course of the construction work, the Knoblochs
decided that they wanted to add a spa to the scope of the project. On December
19, 2023, the Knoblochs signed a change order to add a spa (the “Change
Order”).
Defendants allege construction issues with the workmanship
of the pool and the spa. Defendants allege that Cross-Defendants employed
unlicensed employees and subcontractors to construct the pool and spa.
Plaintiff filed this action on August 1, 2024, raising
claims for (1) breach of written contract; (2) work, labor, and
materials/agreed price; (3) open book account; (4) account stated; and (5)
foreclosure of mechanics lien. The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to
pay certain amounts due under the Contract.
On October 15, 2024, Defendants filed the Cross-Complaint
against Cross-Defendants Coastline and Bird (collectively, “Cross-Defendants”).
The FACC is now the operative cross-complaint. The FACC raises claims for (1)
breach of contract; (2) breach of warranty; (3) negligence; (4) violation of
Business & Professions Code, section 17200; (5) violation of Business &
Professions Code, section 7031; (6) violation of Business & Professions
Code, section 7167; (7) violation of Business & Professions Code, section 7159;
(8) violation of Business & Professions Code, section 1021.50; and (9)
indemnification.
On February 14, 2025, Coastline demurred to the
Cross-Complaint. Defendants filed on opposition on March 12, 2025. Coastline
has not filed a reply.
“[C]ourts will generally enforce
the breach of a contractual promise through contract law, except when the
actions that constitute the breach violate a social policy that merits the
imposition of tort remedies.” (Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543,
552.) “Generally, outside the insurance context, “a tortious breach of contract
... may be found when (1) the breach is accompanied by a traditional common law
tort, such as fraud or conversion; (2) the means used to breach the contract
are tortious, involving deceit or undue coercion or; (3) one party
intentionally breaches the contract intending or knowing that such a breach
will cause severe, unmitigable harm in the form of mental anguish, personal
hardship, or substantial consequential damages.” (Id. at pp. 553-554,
quoting Freeman & Mills, Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co. (1995) 11 Cal.4th
85, 105.) “Focusing on intentional conduct gives substance to the
proposition that a breach of contract is tortious only when some independent
duty arising from tort law is violated. If every negligent breach of a contract
gives rise to tort damages the limitation would be meaningless, as would the
statutory distinction between tort and contract remedies. (Id. at p. 554
[emphasis added] [citation omitted].)
Here, Coastline argues that Defendants have not alleged the
breach of an independent duty. Defendants provide no argument in response in
their opposition. “When [a party] fails to raise a
point or asserts it but fails to support it with reasoned argument and citation
to authority, we treat the point as waived.” (Badie v. Bank of America
(1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 779, 784-785.)
The Court sustains the demurrer to this claim with leave to
amend.
Coastline argues that this claim is not an independent cause
of action, but rather a disciplinary action to be enforced by the Contractors
State License Board. Coastline provides no authority indicating that unfair
competition claims can only be enforced by administrative, and the Court does
not believe that this contention is correct. There is extensive authority, some
of which is cited above, indicating that unfair competition can be raised as a
private cause of action.
The Court overrules the demurrer to this claim.
Coastline argues that this claim is not an independent cause
of action, but rather a disciplinary action to be enforced by the Contractors
State License Board. The Court disagrees. “Except as provided in subdivision
(e), a person who utilizes the services of an unlicensed contractor may bring
an action in any court of competent jurisdiction in this state to recover all
compensation paid to the unlicensed contractor for performance of any act or
contract.” (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7031, subd. (b).)
The Court overrules the demurrer to this claim.
“(a) Any contract,
the primary purpose of which is the construction of a swimming pool, that does
not substantially comply with paragraph (4) or (5) of subdivision (c) or
paragraph (7), (8), or (9) of subdivision (d) of Section 7159, shall be void
and unenforceable by the contractor as contrary to public policy.
(b) Failure by the contractor
to comply with paragraph (5) of subdivision (c) of Section 7159 as set forth in
subdivision (a) of this section does not preclude the recovery of compensation
for work performed based on quasi-contract, quantum meruit, restitution, or
other similar legal or equitable remedies designed to prevent unjust
enrichment.”
(Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7167.)
Coastline argues that this claim is not an independent cause
of action. Defendants argue that such a cause of action was brought in California
Pools, Inc. v. Pazargad (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 601, 603. That is not
correct. The defendants in that case contended that the contract in a breach of
contract claim raised against them was void under section 7167. (California
Pools, Inc. v. Pazargad (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 601, 603-604.) Nor does the
plain language of the statute indicate that it is intended to create a private
right of action against a contractor.
The Court sustains the demurrer to this claim without leave
to amend.
Coastline argues that this claim is not an independent cause
of action. “This section identifies the projects for which a home improvement
contract is required, outlines the contract requirements, and lists the items
that shall be included in the contract, or may be provided as an attachment.”
(Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7159, subd. (a)(1).) No part of the statute appears
to create a private right of action, nor do Defendants identify one. Defendants
contend that such a claim was raised in West v. State of California, 181
Cal.App.3d 753, 758-759. But the plaintiffs’ claims in that case were based in
fraud and conversion – not section 7159. (West v. State of California,
181 Cal.App.3d 753, 758-59.)
The Court sustains the demurrer to this claim without leave
to amend.
“Any person who holds a valid state contractor's license
issued pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of
the Business and Professions Code, and who willingly and knowingly enters into
a contract with any person to perform services for which a license is required
as an independent contractor, and that person does not meet the burden of proof
of independent contractor status pursuant to Section 2750.5 or hold a valid
state contractor's license, shall be subject to a civil penalty in the amount
of two hundred dollars ($200) per person so contracted with for each day of the
contract. The civil penalties provided for by this section are in addition to
any other penalty provided by law.” (Lab. Code, § 1021.5.)
This statute does not provide for private enforcement.
Rather, “[i]f upon inspection or investigation the Labor Commissioner
determines that any person is employing workers in violation of Section 1021or
1021.5, he or she may issue a citation to the person in violation.” (Lab. Code,
§ 1022 [emphasis added].)
The Court sustains the demurrer to this claim without leave
to amend.
“An indemnitee seeking to recover on an agreement for
indemnification must allege the parties’ contractual relationship, the
indemnitee’s performance of that portion of the contract which gives rise to
the indemnification claim, the facts showing a loss within the meaning of the
parties’ indemnification agreement, and the amount of damages sustained.” (Four Star Electric, Inc. v. F & H
Construction (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1375, 1380.)
Coastline’s notice of demurrer is not entirely clear as to
whether it demurs to this claim. Coastline initially states that it demurs only
to the third through eighth claims, but later includes a demurrer to the ninth
claim in its notice. This lack of clarity appears to have prejudiced Defendants,
who do not provide argument on this claim in their opposition. The Court
therefore treats this issue as not properly raised in the demurrer.
Even if the Court were to reach the merits, it would also overrule
the demurrer.
The Contract states that “[Coastline] will indemnify [Defendants]
from liabilities to the extent caused by Contractor arising directly or
indirectly from the performance of the work or contract.” (FACC ¶ 164.)
Coastline argues that a claim for indemnity can only be
raised against a third party, and not an existing party in the litigation. The
only authority Coastline provides in support of this proposition is Alki
Partners, LP v. DB Fund Services, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 574, 600, where
the Court of Appeal found that an indemnity clause could not support a claim
for attorney’s fees because it was not an attorney’s fees clause. (Alki
Partners, LP v. DB Fund Services, LLC (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 574, 600.) The
Court did not find that indemnity claims categorically cannot be raised against
an existing party in the litigation. (Ibid.)
The indemnity clause here does not exclude claims raised by
Coastline. Defendants have alleged defects in the construction project that
they allege resulted from Coastline’s conduct. Defendants have therefore stated
a claim.
The Court overrules the demurrer to this claim.