Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22STCV13345, Date: 2025-04-25 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 40 - MICHAEL J. SHULTZ - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call.
Case Number: 22STCV13345 Hearing Date: April 25, 2025 Dept: 40
22STCV13345 Jonathan Sela, et al. v. Utopia
Development, Inc., et al.
Friday,
April 25, 2025
TENTATIVE ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
This negligence and breach of contract case
arises from a construction project at a residential property. The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)
alleges “Plaintiffs contracted with Utopia Development, Inc. to remove the
existing residential structure located at 549 Westminster Ave., in the City of
Los Angeles, California, and replace it with a new structure designed by
others. Utopia subcontracted some of the work to Genty Group.” (FAC, ¶ 15.) “Contractor
Defendants began demolition of the existing residence in late 2016 and promised
to complete the project by September 2017.” (FAC, ¶ 15.) “However, Contractor
Defendants’ delays stretched the … work into the last few months of 2019,
including application of exterior finishes and what should have been final
waterproofing assembly, repairs, and warranty service.” (FAC, ¶ 15.) In 2019,
“Plaintiffs realized that the home was not properly waterproofed … as new leaks
began appearing when rainstorms swept through the area in November and December
2019.” (FAC, ¶ 17.) “Contractor Defendants [had] failed to follow the
applicable building codes, standards of care, designs provided by others, and
product manufacturer instructions, resulting in omitted sill pans, flashing,
slopes, drainage components, and other errors which caused physical damage to
other tangible property.” (FAC, ¶ 25.) Plaintiffs “incurred, and will incur,
repair costs in an amount not less than three-million dollars ($3,000,000) to
correct the defective work and to repair physical damage to other portions of
the home which resulted from Contractor’s wrongful acts and omissions including,
but not limited to, negligence.” (FAC, ¶ 19.)
On May 19, 2022, Plaintiffs Jonathan Sela,
Megan Schoenbachler, and Sela Family Trust filed the FAC against Defendants
Utopia Development, Inc. (“Utopia”), Daniel Moizel, Genty Group, Inc., Gerardo
Hernandez-Martinez, Old Republic Surety Company, Business Alliance Insurance
Company, Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, Wesco Insurance Company, and Does 1
through 30, inclusive, asserting causes of action for (1) negligence, (2)
breach of contract, (3) breach of warranty, (4) unfair competition law, (5)
recovery on contractor’s license bond, and (6) breach of fiduciary duty.
On May 20, 2022, Old Republic Surety
Company filed a Cross-Complaint for Interpleader against Utopia, Jonathan Sela,
Megan Schoenbachler, Sela Family Trust, and Roes 1 through 75.
On July 6, 2022, Ohio Casualty Insurance
Company filed its Cross-Complaint for Interpleader against Genty Group, Inc.,
Jonathan Sela, Megan Schoenbachler, Sela Family Trust, and Roes 1 through 75,
inclusive.
On September 6, 2022, Utopia filed a
Cross-Complaint against Roes 76 to 176, inclusive, asserting causes of action
or (1) equitable indemnity, (2) apportionment/contribution, (3) express
indemnity, (4) breach of contract, and (5) declaratory relief.
On February 9, 2023, Business Alliance
Insurance Company filed a Cross-Complaint against Genty Group, Inc., Gerardo
Hernandez-Martinez, and Roes 1 to 25, inclusive, asserting causes of action for
(1) indemnity and (2) reimbursement (declaratory relief).
On October 24, 2023, Swift Installations Socal
dba Hollywood Skylights filed a Cross-Complaint against Utopia and Roes 177
through 227, inclusive, asserting causes of action for (1) implied and/or
equitable indemnity, (2) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (3)
breach of implied warranty of fitness, (4) negligence, (5) contribution and
allocation, and (6) declaratory relief.
On February 6, 2024, BM Plumbing and Fire
Protection, Inc. filed a Cross-Complaint against Toes 1 through 10, inclusive,
asserting causes of action for (1) implied and equitable indemnity, (2)
contribution, and (3) declaratory relief.
On July 26, 2024, Art Deck., Inc. filed a
Cross-Complaint against Utopia, R.A. Construction, Inc., Gentry Group, Inc.,
and Roes 1 through 25, inclusive, asserting causes of action for (1)
declaratory relief, (2) implied indemnity, (3) comparative equitable indemnity,
and (4) contribution.
The instant motions for the determination of good faith settlement have
been filed by Cross-Defendant Rogee Hydronics Corp., Cross-Defendant Precise
General Contractor, Inc., Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Swift Installations Socal dba Hollywood
Skylights, and Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Art Deck, Inc.
II.
LEGAL
STANDARD
“Any
party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint
tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on
the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or
other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors, upon giving
notice in the manner provided in subdivision (b) of Section 1005.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (a)(1).) “In
the alternative, a settling party may give notice of settlement to all parties
and to the court, together with an application for determination of good faith
settlement and a proposed order. The application shall indicate the settling
parties, and the basis, terms, and amount of the settlement. The notice,
application, and proposed order shall be given by certified mail, return
receipt requested, or by personal service. Proof of service shall be filed with
the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd.
(a)(2).)
“[T]he
intent and policies underlying section 877.6 require that a number of factors
be taken into account including [1] a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total
recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability, [2] the amount paid in
settlement, [3] the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs, and [4]
a recognition that a settlor should pay less in settlement than he would if he
were found liable after a trial. Other relevant considerations include [5] the
financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants, as
well as [6] the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to
injure the interests of nonsettling defendants. Finally, practical
considerations obviously require that the evaluation be made on the basis of
information available at the time of the settlement.” (Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde
& Associates (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488, 499 (“Tech-Bilt”).)
Additionally,
“the trial court’s good faith determination must take into account the settling
tortfeasor’s potential liability for indemnity to a cotortfeasor, as well as
then settling tortfeasor’s potential liability to the plaintiff.” (Far West Financial Corp. v. D&S
Co. (1988) 46 Cal.3d 796, 816, fn. 16.) “If
section 877.6 is to serve the ends of justice, it must prevent a party from
purchasing protection from its indemnification obligation at bargain-basement
prices.” (Long Beach Memorial Medical Center v.
Superior Court (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 865, 876.) “[A]
defendant’s settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a
reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the settling
defendant’s liability to be.” (Torres v. Union Pacific R. Co.
(1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 499, 509.)
As
long as the settlement is not so far “out of the ballpark” in relation to the
above factors as to be inconsistent with the equitable objectives of Code Civ.
Proc. § 877.6, the settlement shall be determined as being made in good faith.
(Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 499-500.)
When
a motion for determination of good faith settlement is contested, the
moving party must provide the court with declarations or other evidence
demonstrating the facts necessary to evaluate the settlement in terms of the Tech-Bilt factors. (City of Grand Terrace v. Superior
Court (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1251, 1261 (“City of
Grand Terrace”).) After an initial showing by the moving party, the
burden of proof then shifts to the nonsettling defendant to demonstrate the
settlement lacks good faith. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 877.6, subd. (d); Abbott Ford, Inc. v. Superior Court
(1987) 43 Cal.3d 858, 895.)
For
uncontested motions, the Court of Appeal in the City of Grand Terrace
provided the following guidance:
This court notes that of the hundreds of
motions for good faith determination presented for trial court approval each
year, the overwhelming majority are unopposed and granted summarily by the
trial court. At the time of filing, in many cases the moving party does not
know if a contest will develop. If each motion required a full recital by
declaration or affidavit setting forth a complete factual response to all of
the Tech-Bilt factors, literally thousands of attorney hours
would be consumed and inch-thick motions would have to be read and considered
by trial courts in an exercise which would waste valuable judicial and legal
time and clients’ resources. It must also be remembered that Tech-Bilt was
decided on a contested basis. We are unaware of any reported decision which has
reversed an uncontested good faith determination and we,
therefore, conclude that only when the good faith nature of a settlement is
disputed, it is incumbent upon the trial court to consider and weigh the Tech-Bilt factors.
That is to say, when no one objects, the barebones motion which sets forth the
ground of good faith, accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief
background of the case is sufficient.
(City of Grand Terrace, supra,
192 Cal.App.3d at p. 1261 [italics in original].)
III.
MOTION
FILED BY CROSS-DEFENDANT ROGEE HYDRONICS CORP ON APRIL 1, 2025.
Cross-Defendant
Rogee Hydronics Corp. (“Rogee”) (Roe 154 in Utopia’s Cross-Complaint) moves for
an order determining that its settlement with Utopia is in good faith.
According
to City of Grand Terrace, “when no
one objects, [a] barebones motion which sets forth the ground of good faith,
accompanied by a declaration which sets forth a brief background of the case is
sufficient.” (City of Grand Terrace, supra,
192 Cal.App.3d at p. 1261.)
Here,
Rogee’s counsel has submitted the following declaration in support of the
cross-defendant’s unopposed motion for determination of good faith settlement.
“Rogee’s scope of work consisted of, and was limited to, the installation of
the radiant floor heating system at the Plaintiffs’ property.” (Rogee’s Motion,
Declaration of William S. Caldwell (“Caldwell Decl.”), ¶ 2.) “After conducting
investigation and discovery, and arm’s length settlement negotiations Utopia
and Rogee reached a settlement of the cross-claims asserted against Rogee by
Utopia in this action.” (Caldwell Decl., ¶ 3.) “In order to avoid the costs and
expense of further litigation and trial, Rogee accepted UTOPIA DEVELOPMENT,
INC. (‘Utopia’) offer to settle Utopia’s cross-complaint against them for a
total of $30,000.00 which is the subject of the instant motion for good faith
determination.” (Caldwell Decl., ¶ 4.) “Utopia and Rogee will execute a
settlement agreement providing a release of any and all issues and claims
related to Rogee’s involvement at the Property (including a waiver of Civil
Code section 1542) and any damages arising therefrom.” (Caldwell Decl., ¶ 5.)
“Following Rogee’s completion of its settlement payment to Utopia, Utopia will
file a dismissal with prejudice of its Cross-Complaint against Rogee. Each
party to bear its own attorneys' fees and costs incurred in this action.”
(Caldwell Decl., ¶ 6.)
In
its motion, Rogee argues that the $30,000 settlement is “within the ballpark”
and reasonable because Rogee has zero or minimal liability in this case.
(Motion, p. 6:12-13.) Rogee further argues that there is no evidence of fraud
or collusion with regard to the settlement; Rogee attended two prior mediation
sessions before settling Utopia’s Cross-Complaint. (Motion, p. 7:11-14.)
In
light of the undisputed facts above, the court GRANTS Rogee’s motion for
determination of good faith settlement.
IV.
MOTION
FILED BY CROSS-DEFENDANT PRECISE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, INC. ON APRIL 3, 2025.
Cross-Defendant
Precise General Contractor, Inc. (“Precise”) moves the Court for an order
determining that its settlement with Cross-Complainant Utopia is in good faith.
As
an initial matter, Precise seeks judicial notice of facts in various pleadings.
(Cf. Request for Judicial Notice, filed on April 3, 2025 (“RJN”), p. 2:18-20
[seeking judicial notice of the fact that Paragraphs 16 to 18 in the FAC allege
that Plaintiffs’ home was not properly waterproofed and that Utopia’s
negligence in construction resulted in numerous defects].) Precise also seeks
judicial notice of the fact that on July 31, 2024, the Court set jury trial for
May 6, 2025. (RJN, p. 3:7-8.)
The
request for judicial notice is granted, but not as to the truth of hearsay
statements. (See Aixtron,
Inc. v. Veeco Instruments Inc. (2020) 52
Cal.App.5th 360, 382, disapproved on other grounds in Vo v.
Technology Credit Union (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 632 [“A court
may judicially notice the ‘[r]ecords of ... any court of this state.’ (Evid.
Code, § 452, subd. (d).) ‘We may take judicial notice of
the existence of judicial opinions and court documents, along with the truth of
the results reached—in documents such as orders, statements of decision, and
judgments—but cannot take judicial notice of the truth of hearsay statements in
decisions or court files, including pleadings, affidavits, testimony, or
statements of fact.’ [Citation]”].)
Precise
and Utopia have agreed to settle their dispute for $35,000. (Precise Motion, p.
2:15-16.)
Precise’s
authorized representative attests to the following facts in support of the
motion. “On or about March 15, 2018, as an authorized representative of
Precise, I entered a Contract with Utopia to provide construction services in
exchange for payment to supply and install interior drywall at the residence
belonging to the Plaintiffs in this matter, located at 549 Westminster Ave.,
Venice, CA 90291 (the ‘Property’).” (Declaration of Cesar Briseno, filed on
April 3, 2025 (“Briseno Decl.”), ¶ 3.) “Prior to Precise filing its Answer to
Utopia’s Cross-complaint, I reviewed the allegations made by Utopia against
Precise in this matter along with the allegations made by the Plaintiffs in
their First Amended Complaint (‘FAC’) against Utopia, and concluded the
Plaintiffs alleged damages do not relate in any way to Precise’s work, that
Precise was not negligent in any manner in its work on the Property, and that
Precise met its applicable standard of care in its work on the Property.”
(Briseno Decl., ¶ 4.) “Throughout the litigation, discovery and negotiation
process, I have not seen any evidence that Precise has any liability to
Plaintiffs, Utopia, and/or any other party for it [sic] work at the Property.”
(Briseno Decl., ¶ 5.) “I have reviewed the conditions at the Property in
conjunction with an expert retained by it, I have has also reviewed Precise’s
files for the work it performed on the Property, and have reviewed the
discovery responses in this litigation and the defect reports produced by the
Plaintiffs’ experts.” (Briseno Decl., ¶ 6.) “I have also consulted with a
general contracting expert to determine whether Precise’s installation of the
interior drywall could have contributed to the damages arising from water
intrusion alleged in the Plaintiffs’ FAC, and on the basis of my in-depth
review, believe the evidence at trial will show that Precise has no liability
from those allegations.” (Briseno Decl., ¶ 7.) “Even though I do not believe
Precise has any liability for its work on the Property, in order to avoid the
expense of continued litigation and to alleviate the uncertainty of a trial, as
an authorized representative of Precise, I have entered a settlement agreement
with Utopia in order to compromise and settle the disputes between us arising
out of or related to any claims in the Action, including any and all disputes
and disagreements related to Precise’ scope of work on the Property.” (Briseno
Decl., ¶ 8.) “The essential terms of the settlement are: 1) Precise shall pay
to Utopia the total sum of $35,000.00 (Thirty-five Thousand Dollars) as a part
of its settlement consideration; 2) Utopia and Precise shall fully and forever
release and discharge each other of any of the claims and any losses, costs,
damages or expenses that either of them claimed or may have claimed in the
Action; and 3) Each of them shall bear its own costs, consultant fees, expert
fees, attorney fees, and other expenses related to the Action.” (Briseno Decl.,
¶ 9.)
Precise
counsel also testifies that: “The settlement between Precise and Utopia is the
product of arms’ length discussions for more than a year between the settling
parties, and no aspects of the settlement discussions and no elements of the
settlement itself involved any collusion against any non- settling party or
parties.” (Declaration of Simran S. Tiwana, filed on April 3, 2025 (“Tiwana
Decl.”), ¶ 7.) “The settlement discussions between the parties were aided by
mediator Mr. Stacy LaScala of JAMS.” (Tiwana Decl., ¶ 8.)
No
opposition to Precise’s motion has been filed.
Therefore,
based on the above undisputed facts, the court GRANTS Precise’s motion for
determination of good faith settlement.
V.
MOTION
FILED BY CROSS-DEFENDANT AND CROSS-COMPLAINANT SWIFT INSTALLATIONS SOCAL DBA
HOLLYWOOD SKYLIGHTS ON APRIL 4, 2025.
Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Swift Installations Socal dba Hollywood Skylights (“Hollywood Skylights”) moves
the court for a determination of good faith settlement with regard to the
settlement reached between Hollywood Skylights and Plaintiffs (i.e., Jonathan
Sela, Megan Schoenbachler, and Sela Family Trust).
As
an initial matter, the court grants Hollywood Skylights’s request for judicial
notice of the FAC (Exhibit A in the request for judicial notice), Utopia’s
Cross-Complaint (Exhibit B, and Utopia’s Roe Amendment substituting Hollywood
Skylights for the cross-defendant sued fictitiously as Roe 158 (Exhibit C).
(Request for Judicial Notice, filed on April 4, 2025, p. 2:5-14; Evid.
Code, § 452, subd. (d) [allowing judicial notice of court
records].)
The
motion states that Plaintiffs and Hollywood Skylights have agreed to settle
their dispute for $15,500. (Memorandum of Points and Authorities, filed April
4, 2025, p. 4:20-21.)
Hollywood
Skylights has submitted a declaration from its expert witness, Bradley Hughes,
who attests to the following facts in support of the motion. “I am a licensed
and bonded general contracting, roofing and waterproofing professional with
over 22-years’ experience in the construction and litigation industries. During
this period, I have served as a senior project manager professional in a
variety of construction defect and insurance claim related projects …. I am
currently employed as an expert/consultant with Bert Howe & Associates,
Inc.” (Hughes Decl., filed April 4, 2025, ¶ 1.) “It is my further understanding
that HOLLYWOOD SKYLIGHTS was retained by Plaintiffs to perform certain repair
and remediation work at [Plaintiffs’ property], consisting of the remediation
of two skylights that had been previously installed while UTOPIA was general
contractor for the project.” (Hughes Decl., ¶ 5.) “It is my further
understanding that HOLLYWOOD SKYLIGHTS performed this work pursuant to the
request of Plaintiffs who HOLLYWOOD SKYLIGHTS invoiced for approximately $7,000
and was paid in full by Plaintiffs.” (Hughes Decl., ¶ 6.) “After performing a
thorough analysis of the work performed by HOLLYWOOD SKYLIGHTS, PLAINTIFFS’
allegations, and the defenses on this matter, I disagree with UTOPIA’S
attribution of responsibility for PLAINTIFFS’ claims and believe instead that
none of PLAINTIFFS’ allegations implicate any work performed by HOLLYWOOD
SKYLIGHTS.” (Hughes Decl., ¶ 12.) “Due to the dispute between UTOPIA and HOLLYWOOD
SKYLIGHTS regarding what claims, if any, may be attributed to work performed by
HOLLYWOOD SKYLIGHTS, the proposed settlement of $15,500.00 represents a more
than generous middle-ground between what UTOPIA believes HOLLYWOOD SKYLIGHTS is
responsible for, and what I believe is HOLLYWOOD SKYLIGHTS’ non-existent
exposure.” (Hughes Decl., ¶ 13.) “There is significant dispute as to the
existence of any damages at the PROPERTY related to HOLLYWOOD SKYLIGHTS’ work
at the PROPERTY. Nevertheless, it appears that there is a risk that HOLLYWOOD
SKYLIGHTS will be found liable for at least some portion of damages at trial
and, even if not, will have to spend significant defense fees and costs to
reach a verdict of no liability. I therefore believe the overall settlement is
within a reasonable range.” (Hughes Decl., ¶ 14.)
In
its motion, Hollywood Skylights argues that “its settlement with UTOPIA was not
the result of fraud, collusion, or other tortious conduct, and that the amount
being paid is in proportionate share to its liability and exposure.”
(Memorandum of Points and Authorities, p. 9:4-6; see also Declaration of
Rosario L. Vizzie, filed on April 4, 2025, ¶ 10 [“The parties, including
PLAINTIFFS, UTOPIA and HOLLYWOOD SKYLIGHTS, and their respective experts, have
conducted significant discovery in this action, including attendance at site
inspections at the PROPERTY, review of documents, engaging in written
discovery, and the taking of at least one deposition of UTOPIA personnel as
well as Plaintiff Jonathan Sela’s deposition”]; id. at ¶ 12 [“In the
days following the recent site inspection at the Property on March 7, 2025 in
which several defense parties attended, including PLAINTIFFS and HOLLYWOOD
SKYLIGHTS, and following further evaluation of the claims at issue including an
updated evaluation by HOLLYWOOD SKYLIGHTS’ retained expert in this case,
Bradley Hughes, in which he once again confirmed no defects exist as to the two
skylights so as to give rise to any defect claims by PLAINTIFFS, HOLLYWOOD
SKYLIGHTS ultimately reached a settlement with PLAINTIFFS”].)
No
opposition to motion has been filed.
Accordingly,
based on the above undisputed facts, the court GRANTS Hollywood Skylights’s
motion for determination of good faith settlement.
VI.
MOTION
FILED BY CROSS-DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT
ART DECK, INC. ON APRIL 10, 2025.
Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Art Deck, Inc. (“Art Deck”) moves for an order determining that the settlement
reached between Art Deck and Utopia was made in good faith.
Art
Deck states that the settling parties have agreed to settle for $150,000.
(Motion, p. 3:11-14.)
In
support of the motion, Art Deck submits its counsel’s declaration, which
attests to the following facts.
“UTOPIA
… retained the services of a number of specialized subcontractors, including
ART DECK, to perform certain waterproofing work at [Plaintiffs’ Property].” (Motion,
Declaration of Regina Jaramillo, filed on April 10, 2025 (“Jaramillo Decl.”), ¶
3.)
“The
parties, including PLAINTIFFS, UTOPIA and ART DECK, … conducted significant
discovery in this action, including attendance at site inspections at the
PROPERTY, review of documents, engaging in written discovery and the deposition
of Plaintiff Jonathan Sela.” (Jaramillo Decl., ¶ 14.) In addition, “ART DECK’S
retained experts Mark Vanderslice and Henry Alba … performed a thorough
examination of PLAINTIFFS’ Amended Preliminary Defect Report and Project Cost
(Current Defect List and Cost of Repair Estimate), dated October 9, 2023,
UTOPIA’S allocations thereof to ART DECK, attendance of a site inspection on
March 6, 2025 and review project documentation.” (Jaramillo Decl., ¶ 15.) Art
Deck’s experts testify that they did not see “any photographs, reports, or
water testing results where any of the work performed by ART DECK was shown to
be leaking or the cause of any water damage at the PROPERTY as attributed by
UTOPIA.” (Declaration of Mark C. Vanderslice, filed April 10, 2025, ¶ 9;
Declaration of Henry Alba, filed April 10, 2025, ¶ 7.)
Out
of the damages Plaintiffs are claiming, Utopia allocated to Art Deck damages of
$260,441.55. (Jaramillo Decl., ¶ 16.)
“After
Mediations and extensive settlement negotiations, ART DECK … reached a
settlement with UTOPIA for $150.000.00 ….” (Jaramillo Decl., ¶ 17.)
“The
settlement was entered into after lengthy settlement discussions, including negotiations
with the assistance of a mediator. It was not reached as a result of any
collusion, fraud or other tortuous conduct with intent to injure the interests
of any non-settling defendants.” (Jaramillo Decl., ¶ 19.)
In
light of the above undisputed facts and the fact that the motion is unopposed,
the court GRANTS Art Deck’s motion for determination of good faith settlement.
VII.
CONCLUSION
The Motions for Determination of Good Faith Settlement filed by (1)
Cross-Defendant Rogee Hydronics Corp., (2) Cross-Defendant Precise General
Contractor, Inc., (3) CROSS-DEFENDANT/CROSS-COMPLAINANT Swift Installations Socal dba Hollywood
Skylights, and (4) Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant Art Deck, Inc. are
GRANTED.