Judge: Joseph R. Porras, Case: VC065473, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: VC065473 Hearing Date: March 17, 2023 Dept: SEG
COURT'S RULING ON THE STATEMENT OF DECISION
This
matter was submitted to the Court, the Honorable Joseph R. Porras presiding, on
October 31, 2022. The trial, which was conducted to the Court without a jury,
was held on the following dates in 2022: March 29-30, April 1, 11-13, 25-28,
May 2, 5, 12-13, June 2, 6-9, 21-24, 27-30, July 1, 5-7, 12-14, and August 16.
The parties rested on July 14, 2022. On August 16, 2022, the Court ordered the
parties to submit closing argument briefs. The parties filed closing briefs on
October 31, 2022, and the matter was submitted. The Court issued its oral
decision on December 9, 2022 and ordered counsel for plaintiff and
cross-defendant WnG Construction JV, Inc. (WnG) to draft the Statement of
Decision. No court reporter was present at the December 9 hearing. With the Court’s
permission, the parties were permitted to record the hearing to use in
preparing this Statement.
WnG was represented at trial by
Thomas F. Nowland, Esq. and Sarah K. O’Brien, Esq. of the Law Offices of Thomas
F. Nowland, and by Elliott H. Stone, Esq. of Stone LLP.
Defendant and cross-complainant AAA
Solar Electric, Inc. (AAA) was represented at trial by Mark A. Feldman, Esq.
and Kevin K. Heravi, Esq. of Feldman & Associates, Inc., who also
represented defendant sureties Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company
(Philadelphia) and Safety National Casualty Corp. (Safety National).
The Court has read the parties’
respective trial briefs and received oral and documentary evidence during
trial. Counsel submitted closing briefs.
In issuing its decision orally from
the bench on December 9, 2022, the Court identified seventeen issues which it
found to be material to the decision in this case and made findings of fact and
rulings on each issue as set forth below.
After written objections and
requests were lodged by the parties and a hearing was held on March 8, 2023, in
open court, the court declined to change its ruling as to issue #14,
prejudgment interest. In addition, the
court agreed to make a ruling on the issue of spoliation and include it in the
final statement of decision as “Issue #18.”
I.
SEVENTEEN ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE COURT
COURT’S
ISSUE # 1 AND RULING
“Licensure of AAA.”
Ruling:
“AAA was properly licensed.”
COURT’S
ISSUE # 2 AND RULING
“Trade Secret
Misappropriation”
Ruling:
“The subject of AAA’s trade secrets claim is not barred by
res judicata. However, the Court does
not find that a legally valid trade secret was established by AAA. And even if it was, the Court does not find
sufficient evidence to conclude that this purported trade secret was used or
misappropriated by WnG.”
COURT’S
ISSUE # 3 AND RULING
“Unfair Competition
Clause”
Ruling:
“Although there may have been a technical violation by WnG,
the Court does not find any damages. So,
there is no recovery.”
COURT’S
ISSUE # 4 AND RULING
“Who was responsible
for demolition at various sites and was that a Good Faith Dispute.”
Ruling:
“WnG was responsible for demolition at all sites. And that this was a Good Faith Dispute.”
COURT’S
ISSUE # 5 AND RULING
“Who was responsible
for or caused delays and was that a Good Faith Dispute.”
Ruling:
“Neither side carried the burden of proving the delay was
attributable to the other side, and that was a good faith dispute.”
COURT’S ISSUE
# 6 AND RULING
“Lack of manpower
supplied by WnG.”
Ruling:
“The Court does not find that WnG was lacking in supplying
manpower.”
COURT’S
ISSUE # 7 AND RULING
“Who was responsible
for providing certain Valcom equipment.”
Ruling:
“AAA was responsible for providing Valcom equipment.”
COURT’S
ISSUE # 8 AND RULING
“Liquidated Damages.”
Ruling:
“No recovery by AAA regarding liquidated damages.”
COURT’S ISSUE
# 9 AND RULING
“Fraud under Penal
Code 496 (a) and Business and Professions Code 17200.”
Ruling:
“The Court does not find evidence of fraud by AAA under
either Penal Code 496 (a) or any violation of Business and Professions Code
17200.”
COURT’S ISSUE
# 10 AND RULING
“That the bond
company owes on any claim or Judgment against AAA.”
Ruling:
Defendant Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company is liable
for the payment bonds. Defendant Safety
National is liable on the Stop Notice Release bonds.
COURT’S
ISSUE # 11 AND RULING
“AAA owing WnG a 2%
prompt payment interest fee from the time of non-payment to the present.”
Ruling:
“The Court finds that AAA does not owe WnG a 2% non-payment
penalty from the time of non-payment.”
COURT’S
ISSUE # 12 AND RULING
“The affirmative
defense by AAA of unclean hands.”
Ruling:
“The Court finds that AAA has not proven that WnG acted with
unclean hands.”
COURT’S
ISSUE # 13 AND RULING
“Responsibility for
demolition at Avalon Gardens and Trenching responsibility at Avalon
Gardens.”
Ruling:
“Neither side met its burden of who was liable to provide
trenching at Avalon Gardens. So, there
is not going to be any AAA offset as to trenching or whether it went over an
arcade, whatever that offset would be. So there is no AAA offset. Neither side met its burden of who was liable
to provide the trenching.”
COURT’S
ISSUE # 14 AND RULING
“Prejudgment Interest.”
Ruling:
“Prejudgment interest of 10% will be
awarded from the date of July 6, 2016.”
COURT’S
ISSUE # 15 AND RULING
“Reformation of Any
of the Contracts”
Ruling:
“The Court is not ordering reformation of any Contract
involved in this litigation.”
COURT’S
ISSUE # 16 AND RULING
“Disgorgement of
$143,000 paid to WnG regarding work done at Pacific Palisades.”
Ruling:
“The Court is not ordering disgorgement of $143,000 paid to
WnG for work performed at Pacific Palisades.”
COURT’S
ISSUE # 17 AND RULING
“AAA’s claim of
intentional or negligent interference with Prospective Economic Relationships.”
Ruling:
“The Court finds no intentional or negligent interference
with Prospective Economic Relationships to have been committed by WnG.”
COURT’S
RULING ON ISSUE # 18
ISSUE 18
Whether WnG deleted various email
accounts from its GoDaddy Webmail Server that may have held relevant emails on
the issues at dispute between the parties after receiving a litigation hold
letter in November of 2017.
Ruling:
Defendants’ PSOD requests this Court
rule on Defendants’ Issue 18: whether WnG deleted various email accounts . . .
that may have held relevant emails on the issues at dispute between the parties
after receiving a litigation hold letter in November of 2017.” (PSOD, pp. 9-10.)
This
issue was addressed and ruled on in the Law and Motion Court, Southeast
District, Norwalk Courthouse, Department C, in 2019, and is reflected in the
minute order of June 5, 2019, where sanctions were imposed.
The
remedy at trial for alleged spoliation of evidence is to inform the trier of
fact and allow it – jury or bench – to determine what inferences it might
choose to draw. (See California Civil
Jury Instruction No. 204: “You may consider whether one party intentionally
concealed or destroyed evidence. If you
decide that a party did so, you may decide that the evidence would have been
unfavorable to that party.”)
This
court, during the trial allowed evidence of the details of the spoliation issue
to be introduced and this court analyzed that evidence and drew its own
conclusions and inferences therefrom, and its effects on all the other evidence
presented.
This
court does not feel that it is necessary or appropriate to make any other
specific finding or ruling on the issue of spoliation.
II.
COURT’S SUMMARY OF ITS RULING
SUMMARY OF
COURT’S RULING:
“So the Court in Summary is ordering
that AAA pay WnG $2,355,943.44 less $494,889 that AAA paid for demolition. So that total that the Court is ordering is
$1,861,054.44 plus 10% prejudgment interest from the date of
July 6, 2016.”