Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
No. 07AS04450 Dept. 43
RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE VS. RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, ind
ABBOTT, and dba CA CONSTRUCTION;
MARK SMITH,
PLAINTIFFS, DEFENDANTS.
JUDGMENT ON VERDICT
THIS CAUSE came on regularly for trial v;ith STEPHANIE FINELLI
appearing as counsel for the plaintiffs; TODD JONES and GREGORY
FEDERICO for defendant RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, ind and dba CA
CONSTRUCTION; and MARK SiMITH, on his own behalf in pro per.
THEREUPON, a jury of twelve persons was duly accepted,
empaneled and sworn to try said cause. Witnesses on the part of
the R O D N E Y A B B O T T and FLORENTINE ABBOTT; RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID,
ind and dba CA CONSTRUCTION; and M A R K SMITH, were duly sworn and
examined.
WHEREUPON, after hearing the evidence, the arguments of
Counsel and instructions of the Court, the cause was submitted to
the jury, who retired to deliberate upon their verdict, and
subsequently returned into court, and, being called, all answered
to their names, and then rendered the following verdict, which
was accepted by the Court and entered on the minutes, as follows:
Page 1 of 7
— 4 4 5 0 020311 JDGONVERD
^ ^
By^^W/Deputy Clerk
S U P E R I O R C O U R T OF CALiFOFrmTsr
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
RODNEY AND FLORENTINE ABBOTT, Case Number: 07AS04450
Plaintiffs,
Department: 43
vs.
SPECIAL VERDICT
RICHARD RUYBALID DBA CA
CONSTRUCTION AND MARK SMITH,
Defendants.
We, the jury in the above-indicatecJ matter, answer the questions aske
Yes V No
If your answer to Question 2 is "Yes", then skip Question 3 and answer Question
4 If you answered "No", answer Question 3
Were the Plaintiffs ABBOTT excused from having to do all, or substantially all,
of the significant things that the contract required them to do"?
Yes \ . No
If your answer to Question 3 is "Yes", then answer Question 4 If you answered
"No", then skip Questions 4, 5, and 6, and answer Question 7
Did Defendant CA CONSTRUCTION fail to do something that the contract required
them to do?
Yes No
If your answer to Question 4 is "Yes", then answer Question 5 If you answered "No",
then skip questions 5 and 6, and answer Question 7
Was Defendant CA CONSTRUCTION excused from having to do all, or
substantially all, ofthe significant things that the contract required him to do"?
Yes No
If your answer to Question 5 is "Yes", then skip Question 6, and answer Question
7 If you answered "No", then answer Question 6
6 Were the Plaintiffs ABBOTT harmed by the failure of CA CONSTRUCTION to
perform under the contracf?
Yes No
Please proceed to question No 7
NEGLIGENCE
CA CONSTRUCTION AND MARK SMITH
7 a. Was CA Construction negligent in performing its work at the Abbott
home'?
Yes \ \ No
b Was Mark Smith dba Groundbreakers negligent in performing its
work at the Abbott home?
Yes No \
Ifyou answered "yes" in any part of Question 7, then answer question 8. If you
answered "no" to all parts of question 7, stop here, and proceed to question
No. 15
8 For each party that received a "yes" answer in question 7, answer the following
Was CA Construction's negligence a substantial factor in causing harm
to the Abbott home?
Yes No \
Was Mark Smith dba Groundbreakers' negligence a substantial factor
in causing barm to the Abbott home?
Yes No
If you answered "yes" in any part of question 8, then answer question 9 If you
answered "no" to all parts of question 8, proceed to question 15
9 What are the Plaintiffs Abbott's total damages'? Do not reduce the damages
based on the fault, if any, ofthe Plaintiffs Abbott or others
TOTAL
If the Plaintiffs Abbott have proved any damages, then answer question 10 If the
Plaintiffs Abbott have not proved any damages, then stop here, and proceed to
question No 15
PLAINTIFFS' CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
10 Were the ABBOTTS negligent?
Yes No
If your answer to question 10 is " yes," then answer question 11 If you answered
"no," then answer question 12
11 Were the Abbott's negligence a substantial factor in causing their harm?
Yes No
If your answer to question 11 is " yes," then answer question 12 If you answered
"no", then insert the number zero next to Plaintiffs Abbott's name in question
14 and answer question 12
THE NEGLIGENCE OF OTHERS
12 Was RONALD BRITSCHGI negligent?
Yes No
Was CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC negligent?
Yes No
If you answered yes to any part of 12, then answer question 13 If you answered
no to all parts of question 12, answer question 14
13 For each person who received a "yes" answer in question 12, answer the
following
Was RONALD BRITSCHGI's negligence a substantial factor in causing the harm
to Plaintiffs ABBOTT?
Yes No
Was CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC 's negligence a substantial factor in causing
the harm to Plaintiffs ABBOTT?
Yes No
If you answered yes to any part of 13, then answer question 14 If you answered
no regarding all persons in question 13, then insert the number zero next to their
names in question 14 and answer question 15
14 What percentage of responsibility for Plaintiffs Abbott's harm do you assign to
the following? Insert a percentage for only those who received "yes" answers in
questions 8, 11, or 13
CA CONSTRUCTION %
MARK SMITH
PLAINTIFFS ABBOI I' %
RONALD BRITSCHGI _%
CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC %
TOTAL 100 _ %
VIOLATION OF THE BUSINESS AND P ROFESSIOIMS CODES
CA CONSTRUCTION
Please answer questions 15, 16, and 17
15 Did Defendant RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID dba CA CONSTRUCTION
willfully depart from accepted trade standards for good and workmanlike construction?
YES ^ NO
16 Did Defendant RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID dba CA CONSTRUCTION
perform work as a concrete contractor without a valid C-8 Iicense?
YES NO
17 Did Defendant RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID dba CA CONSTRUCTION knowingly make
false or fraudulent representations to Plaintiffs about his ability to properly perform the
services he was required to perform under the contract with the Plaintiffs?
YES NO
Ifyou answered Question 15, 16 or 17 "Yes", then answer Question 18 and sign the
form. If you answered "No", then sign the form
18 Were the Plaintiffs harmed by this violation?
YES NoX
Dated ^ - X r / / Signed y ^ i m ^ U j . - - / / - ^ / f m m ^
-''Foreperson ^
After you have completed this form, please inform the Court Attendant
07AS04450
ABBOTT V BRITSCHGI
JUDGMENT ON VERDICT, continued.
WHEREFORE, by virtue of the law and by reason of the
premises aforesaid, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that
RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE ABBOTT, plaintiffs to take nothing
by this action as against RICHARD KIRK RUYBALD, ind and dba CA
CONSTRUCTION, and MARK SMITH defendants, but that judgment be and
the same is hereby entered herein in favor of said defendants and
against the said plaintiffs for said defendants' costs and
disbursements incurred in__JJtiiis action amounti/ig to the sum of
$
Dated:02/03/ll
^=t^ ^2^
Honorable BRIAN R. VAN CAMP,
Judge of the Superior Court of California,
County of Sacramento
Preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO No. 07AS04450 Dept. 43 RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE VS. RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, ind ABBOTT, and dba CA CONSTRUCTION; MARK SMITH, PLAINTIFFS, DEFENDANTS. JUDGMENT ON VERDICT THIS CAUSE came on regularly for trial v;ith STEPHANIE FINELLI appearing as counsel for the plaintiffs; TODD JONES and GREGORY FEDERICO for defendant RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, ind and dba CA CONSTRUCTION; and MARK SiMITH, on his own behalf in pro per. THEREUPON, a jury of twelve persons was duly accepted, empaneled and sworn to try said cause. Witnesses on the part of the R O D N E Y A B B O T T and FLORENTINE ABBOTT; RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID, ind and dba CA CONSTRUCTION; and M A R K SMITH, were duly sworn and examined. WHEREUPON, after hearing the evidence, the arguments of Counsel and instructions of the Court, the cause was submitted to the jury, who retired to deliberate upon their verdict, and subsequently returned into court, and, being called, all answered to their names, and then rendered the following verdict, which was accepted by the Court and entered on the minutes, as follows: Page 1 of 7 — 4 4 5 0 020311 JDGONVERD ^ ^ By^^W/Deputy Clerk S U P E R I O R C O U R T OF CALiFOFrmTsr COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO RODNEY AND FLORENTINE ABBOTT, Case Number: 07AS04450 Plaintiffs, Department: 43 vs. SPECIAL VERDICT RICHARD RUYBALID DBA CA CONSTRUCTION AND MARK SMITH, Defendants. We, the jury in the above-indicatecJ matter, answer the questions aske Yes V No If your answer to Question 2 is "Yes", then skip Question 3 and answer Question 4 If you answered "No", answer Question 3 Were the Plaintiffs ABBOTT excused from having to do all, or substantially all, of the significant things that the contract required them to do"? Yes \ . No If your answer to Question 3 is "Yes", then answer Question 4 If you answered "No", then skip Questions 4, 5, and 6, and answer Question 7 Did Defendant CA CONSTRUCTION fail to do something that the contract required them to do? Yes No If your answer to Question 4 is "Yes", then answer Question 5 If you answered "No", then skip questions 5 and 6, and answer Question 7 Was Defendant CA CONSTRUCTION excused from having to do all, or substantially all, ofthe significant things that the contract required him to do"? Yes No If your answer to Question 5 is "Yes", then skip Question 6, and answer Question 7 If you answered "No", then answer Question 6 6 Were the Plaintiffs ABBOTT harmed by the failure of CA CONSTRUCTION to perform under the contracf? Yes No Please proceed to question No 7 NEGLIGENCE CA CONSTRUCTION AND MARK SMITH 7 a. Was CA Construction negligent in performing its work at the Abbott home'? Yes \ \ No b Was Mark Smith dba Groundbreakers negligent in performing its work at the Abbott home? Yes No \ Ifyou answered "yes" in any part of Question 7, then answer question 8. If you answered "no" to all parts of question 7, stop here, and proceed to question No. 15 8 For each party that received a "yes" answer in question 7, answer the following Was CA Construction's negligence a substantial factor in causing harm to the Abbott home? Yes No \ Was Mark Smith dba Groundbreakers' negligence a substantial factor in causing barm to the Abbott home? Yes No If you answered "yes" in any part of question 8, then answer question 9 If you answered "no" to all parts of question 8, proceed to question 15 9 What are the Plaintiffs Abbott's total damages'? Do not reduce the damages based on the fault, if any, ofthe Plaintiffs Abbott or others TOTAL If the Plaintiffs Abbott have proved any damages, then answer question 10 If the Plaintiffs Abbott have not proved any damages, then stop here, and proceed to question No 15 PLAINTIFFS' CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE 10 Were the ABBOTTS negligent? Yes No If your answer to question 10 is " yes," then answer question 11 If you answered "no," then answer question 12 11 Were the Abbott's negligence a substantial factor in causing their harm? Yes No If your answer to question 11 is " yes," then answer question 12 If you answered "no", then insert the number zero next to Plaintiffs Abbott's name in question 14 and answer question 12 THE NEGLIGENCE OF OTHERS 12 Was RONALD BRITSCHGI negligent? Yes No Was CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC negligent? Yes No If you answered yes to any part of 12, then answer question 13 If you answered no to all parts of question 12, answer question 14 13 For each person who received a "yes" answer in question 12, answer the following Was RONALD BRITSCHGI's negligence a substantial factor in causing the harm to Plaintiffs ABBOTT? Yes No Was CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC 's negligence a substantial factor in causing the harm to Plaintiffs ABBOTT? Yes No If you answered yes to any part of 13, then answer question 14 If you answered no regarding all persons in question 13, then insert the number zero next to their names in question 14 and answer question 15 14 What percentage of responsibility for Plaintiffs Abbott's harm do you assign to the following? Insert a percentage for only those who received "yes" answers in questions 8, 11, or 13 CA CONSTRUCTION % MARK SMITH PLAINTIFFS ABBOI I' % RONALD BRITSCHGI _% CADRE DESIGN GROUP, INC % TOTAL 100 _ % VIOLATION OF THE BUSINESS AND P ROFESSIOIMS CODES CA CONSTRUCTION Please answer questions 15, 16, and 17 15 Did Defendant RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID dba CA CONSTRUCTION willfully depart from accepted trade standards for good and workmanlike construction? YES ^ NO 16 Did Defendant RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID dba CA CONSTRUCTION perform work as a concrete contractor without a valid C-8 Iicense? YES NO 17 Did Defendant RICHARD KIRK RUYBALID dba CA CONSTRUCTION knowingly make false or fraudulent representations to Plaintiffs about his ability to properly perform the services he was required to perform under the contract with the Plaintiffs? YES NO Ifyou answered Question 15, 16 or 17 "Yes", then answer Question 18 and sign the form. If you answered "No", then sign the form 18 Were the Plaintiffs harmed by this violation? YES NoX Dated ^ - X r / / Signed y ^ i m ^ U j . - - / / - ^ / f m m ^ -''Foreperson ^ After you have completed this form, please inform the Court Attendant 07AS04450 ABBOTT V BRITSCHGI JUDGMENT ON VERDICT, continued. WHEREFORE, by virtue of the law and by reason of the premises aforesaid, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that RODNEY ABBOTT and FLORENTINE ABBOTT, plaintiffs to take nothing by this action as against RICHARD KIRK RUYBALD, ind and dba CA CONSTRUCTION, and MARK SMITH defendants, but that judgment be and the same is hereby entered herein in favor of said defendants and against the said plaintiffs for said defendants' costs and disbursements incurred in__JJtiiis action amounti/ig to the sum of $ Dated:02/03/ll ^=t^ ^2^ Honorable BRIAN R. VAN CAMP, Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento