Preview
1 Alexander M. Kallis, Esq. (SBN: 264915)
LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. KALLIS
2
3 E. 3rd Ave., Suite 200
3 San Mateo, CA 94404
Phone: (650) 576-2878
4
Attorney for Defendant
5
MIKE GENARDINI
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
9
10
SHAYAN BOLBOLAN, Case No.: 20-CIV-03085
11
12 Plaintiff,
DEFENDANT MIKE GENARDINI’S
13 vs. TRIAL BRIEF
14 ON TRACKAUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, MIKE Date: March 15 and 16, 2023
15 GENARDINI, Time: 9:00 a.m.
Dept.: 4
16 Defendants.
17
MIKE GENARDINI (“Defendant”) hereby submits the following Trial Brief in
18
anticipation of the trial scheduled for March 15 and March 16, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in
19
20 Department 4 of the above-entitled court.
21 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
22
Plaintiff alleges that, sometime in 2019, Defendant and he entered into a contract
23
wherein Plaintiff would provide professional contracting services to Defendant. Plaintiff
24
claims he subsequently performed contracting services for Defendant.
25
26 a. No Written or Oral Contract
27 Plaintiff and Defendant never entered into a written contract for Plaintiff to provide
28
services. Plaintiff never even provided Defendant with a written contract. Plaintiff never
DEFENDANT MIKE GENARDINI’S TRIAL BRIEF
-1
1 provide Defendant with any estimates, or with receipts for materials Plaintiff allegedly
2
purchased.
3
On or about November 11, 2019, Plaintiff did provided Defendant an invoice in the
4
amount of $169,696.69. The invoice an itemization of various services and materials, and
5
6 accompanying costs. The invoice also includes 4 late fees, of $7,500.00 each.
7 The invoice, and contents therein, came as a complete surprise to Defendant, who
8
immediately protested to Plaintiff.
9
b. Plaintiff’s Unauthorized Use Of Contracting License
10
On the invoice, among other things, Plaintiff includes in the header the following
11
12 identifying information:
13 “Shayan bolbolan construction lic#439428”
14
In reality, California Contracting License No. 439428 belongs to a Mr. Joel Barron, the
15
owner of Artista Design Build, a San Mateo County-based contracting business.
16
Mr. Barron, at no time and in no way, authorized Plaintiff to use Mr. Barron’s
17
18 contracting license. Plaintiff’s use of lic#439428 was and is completely unauthorized. Mr.
19 Barron, upon learning of Plaintiff’s actions, filed with the Contractors State License Board a
20
notice that Plaintiff was using Mr. Barron’s license without permission.
21
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
22
a. Unlawful Contracting
23
24 Business and Professions Code Sec. 7028 reads in relevant part:
25 “(a) It is a misdemeanor for a person to engage in the
business or act in the capacity of a contractor within this state
26
without having a license therefor, unless the person is
27 particularly exempted from this chapter.”
28 Here, Plaintiff has engaged in the business of, and acted in the capacity of, a contractor.
DEFENDANT MIKE GENARDINI’S TRIAL BRIEF
-2
1 He did so ostensibly under the license of Joel Barron, who never authorized Plaintiff to use Mr.
2
Barron’s license, or to perform any contracting work.
3
If Plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, that he did perform professional contracting
4
work for Defendant, then Plaintiff has committed a criminal act, and the alleged underlying
5
6 contract is automatically unenforceable and no amount of money can be due from Defendant to
7 Plaintiff.
8
b. No Contract Formation
9
Furthermore, even assuming arguendo Plaintiff were a licensed contractor, there is no
10
evidence supporting a finding that there was contract formation between the parties.
11
12 California Jury Instruction 302 – Contract Formation, reads as follows:
13 1. That the contract terms were clear enough that the
parties could understand what each was required to
14
do;
15 2. That the parties agreed to give each other something
of value [a promise to do something or not to do
16 something may have value];
and
17
3. That the parties agreed to the terms of the contract.
18
California Jury Instruction 303 – Breach of Contract, Elements 1, 2, and 4, read as
19
follows:
20
21 1. That [Plaintiff] and [Defendant] entered into a contract;
22 2. That [Plaintiff] did all, or substantially all, of the significant things that the
23
contract required [him] to do;
24
4. That [Defendant] failed to do something that the contract required [her] to do.
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT MIKE GENARDINI’S TRIAL BRIEF
-3
1 Here, Plaintiff and Defendant did not enter into a contract, either written or oral, nor did
2
they enter into a contract the terms of which were clear enough that the parties could understand
3
what each was required to do.
4
There was certainly no written contract. Plaintiff provides no such written contract.
5
6 Plaintiff does not even provide emails or texts reflecting any contract, or part thereof.
7 Finally, there was no oral contract. Reviewing Plaintiff’s proffered invoice, there are so
8
many items, with late fees as well, that it is difficult to believe that an oral agreement could
9
encompass so many items, especially when Plaintiff claims a contract price of $169,696.69.
10
III. CONCLUSION
11
12 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully asks the Court for:
13 a. Judgment against Plaintiff, and in favor of Defendant
14
b. Attorneys fees to Defendant, in an amount according to proof;
15
c. Court costs to Defendant, in an amount according to proof;
16
d. Any other relief the Court may find just and equitable
17
18
19 DATE: March 13, 2023
20
Respectfully submitted,
21
22
_____________________
23
ALEXANDER M. KALLIS, ESQ.
24 Attorney for Defendant
MIKE GENARDINI
25
26
27
28
DEFENDANT MIKE GENARDINI’S TRIAL BRIEF
-4
Preview
1 Alexander M. Kallis, Esq. (SBN: 264915) LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. KALLIS 2 3 E. 3rd Ave., Suite 200 3 San Mateo, CA 94404 Phone: (650) 576-2878 4 Attorney for Defendant 5 MIKE GENARDINI 6 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 9 10 SHAYAN BOLBOLAN, Case No.: 20-CIV-03085 11 12 Plaintiff, DEFENDANT MIKE GENARDINI’S 13 vs. TRIAL BRIEF 14 ON TRACKAUTOMOTIVE REPAIR, MIKE Date: March 15 and 16, 2023 15 GENARDINI, Time: 9:00 a.m. Dept.: 4 16 Defendants. 17 MIKE GENARDINI (“Defendant”) hereby submits the following Trial Brief in 18 anticipation of the trial scheduled for March 15 and March 16, 2023, at 9:00 a.m., in 19 20 Department 4 of the above-entitled court. 21 I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiff alleges that, sometime in 2019, Defendant and he entered into a contract 23 wherein Plaintiff would provide professional contracting services to Defendant. Plaintiff 24 claims he subsequently performed contracting services for Defendant. 25 26 a. No Written or Oral Contract 27 Plaintiff and Defendant never entered into a written contract for Plaintiff to provide 28 services. Plaintiff never even provided Defendant with a written contract. Plaintiff never DEFENDANT MIKE GENARDINI’S TRIAL BRIEF -1 1 provide Defendant with any estimates, or with receipts for materials Plaintiff allegedly 2 purchased. 3 On or about November 11, 2019, Plaintiff did provided Defendant an invoice in the 4 amount of $169,696.69. The invoice an itemization of various services and materials, and 5 6 accompanying costs. The invoice also includes 4 late fees, of $7,500.00 each. 7 The invoice, and contents therein, came as a complete surprise to Defendant, who 8 immediately protested to Plaintiff. 9 b. Plaintiff’s Unauthorized Use Of Contracting License 10 On the invoice, among other things, Plaintiff includes in the header the following 11 12 identifying information: 13 “Shayan bolbolan construction lic#439428” 14 In reality, California Contracting License No. 439428 belongs to a Mr. Joel Barron, the 15 owner of Artista Design Build, a San Mateo County-based contracting business. 16 Mr. Barron, at no time and in no way, authorized Plaintiff to use Mr. Barron’s 17 18 contracting license. Plaintiff’s use of lic#439428 was and is completely unauthorized. Mr. 19 Barron, upon learning of Plaintiff’s actions, filed with the Contractors State License Board a 20 notice that Plaintiff was using Mr. Barron’s license without permission. 21 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS 22 a. Unlawful Contracting 23 24 Business and Professions Code Sec. 7028 reads in relevant part: 25 “(a) It is a misdemeanor for a person to engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor within this state 26 without having a license therefor, unless the person is 27 particularly exempted from this chapter.” 28 Here, Plaintiff has engaged in the business of, and acted in the capacity of, a contractor. DEFENDANT MIKE GENARDINI’S TRIAL BRIEF -2 1 He did so ostensibly under the license of Joel Barron, who never authorized Plaintiff to use Mr. 2 Barron’s license, or to perform any contracting work. 3 If Plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, that he did perform professional contracting 4 work for Defendant, then Plaintiff has committed a criminal act, and the alleged underlying 5 6 contract is automatically unenforceable and no amount of money can be due from Defendant to 7 Plaintiff. 8 b. No Contract Formation 9 Furthermore, even assuming arguendo Plaintiff were a licensed contractor, there is no 10 evidence supporting a finding that there was contract formation between the parties. 11 12 California Jury Instruction 302 – Contract Formation, reads as follows: 13 1. That the contract terms were clear enough that the parties could understand what each was required to 14 do; 15 2. That the parties agreed to give each other something of value [a promise to do something or not to do 16 something may have value]; and 17 3. That the parties agreed to the terms of the contract. 18 California Jury Instruction 303 – Breach of Contract, Elements 1, 2, and 4, read as 19 follows: 20 21 1. That [Plaintiff] and [Defendant] entered into a contract; 22 2. That [Plaintiff] did all, or substantially all, of the significant things that the 23 contract required [him] to do; 24 4. That [Defendant] failed to do something that the contract required [her] to do. 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT MIKE GENARDINI’S TRIAL BRIEF -3 1 Here, Plaintiff and Defendant did not enter into a contract, either written or oral, nor did 2 they enter into a contract the terms of which were clear enough that the parties could understand 3 what each was required to do. 4 There was certainly no written contract. Plaintiff provides no such written contract. 5 6 Plaintiff does not even provide emails or texts reflecting any contract, or part thereof. 7 Finally, there was no oral contract. Reviewing Plaintiff’s proffered invoice, there are so 8 many items, with late fees as well, that it is difficult to believe that an oral agreement could 9 encompass so many items, especially when Plaintiff claims a contract price of $169,696.69. 10 III. CONCLUSION 11 12 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully asks the Court for: 13 a. Judgment against Plaintiff, and in favor of Defendant 14 b. Attorneys fees to Defendant, in an amount according to proof; 15 c. Court costs to Defendant, in an amount according to proof; 16 d. Any other relief the Court may find just and equitable 17 18 19 DATE: March 13, 2023 20 Respectfully submitted, 21 22 _____________________ 23 ALEXANDER M. KALLIS, ESQ. 24 Attorney for Defendant MIKE GENARDINI 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT MIKE GENARDINI’S TRIAL BRIEF -4