Judge Thomas Falls, Case 22PSCV00720 2022-12-27 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

______________________________________________________________________________

This case pertains to home improvements. Plaintiff SEAN CALHOUN dba REOL HELP HOME REPAIR AND REMODEL, a sole proprietorship, alleges the following against Defendants DIANA YARBOI, an individual; CHRIS YARBOI: the parties entered into a written and oral contract wherein Plaintiff would perform construction on Defendants’ property. Defendants, however, have failed to pay Plaintiff $44,882.00 for unpaid “labor, materials, services and equipment.”

On September 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed the instant action. Plaintiff also dismissed the Second Cause of Action for Quantum Meruit.

According to Plaintiff, default judgment is appropriate because “[t]he evidence shows that Plaintiff fully performed its obligations agreed upon under the parties’ contract and has a right to recover the outstanding balance it is owed under the contract.” (Application p. 11.) Not so because Plaintiff has provided insufficient evidence of his labor and material costs.[1]

For one, while “a contractor's work is complete under C.C.P. §3116 when the work called for in its contract has reached the point of "substantial completion," Plaintiff has not provided before and after photos for the court to determine “substantial completion.” (App. p. 11.) The requirement of evidence is of particular import in such a case wherein Defendants seemingly paid for a substantial amount of the agreement price, leaving questions as to why the remainder was not paid.[2] (See Ex. A [Contract amount was $192,754 for work to be done for “Plumbing, Tile, Electrical, Demo Bath #3,4 Possible Plumbing, Electrical, Demo, [and] Tile Bath #2,3.”].)

[1] Plaintiff is to provide receipts of materials.

[2]y And on this point, the complaint alleges that “Plaintiff sums due under said agreement and for change orders and extra work.” (Complaint ¶13.) However, according to the parties’ agreement, any such change orders for additional work must be in writing. (See Exhibit A, Provision 4.1 ‘Changes in the Work’ [“The Contractor is not required to perform additional work or changes without written approval in a "Change Order" before any new work is started.”].) Accordingly, if Plaintiff is attempting to recover for additional work, he has not provided any such written approval.