Preview
William R. Warhurst (SB#95551)
WARHURST LAW OFFICE
200 Main Street, Suite 21
Redwood City, CA 94063
Telephone: (650) 288-3390
Facsimile: (650) 568-0800
IL ED
9‘NMATI:
‘
.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
COOONOU‘l-booN—k
Mark P. Monsarrat
SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION
17 C i V 0 3 Q 9 8
MARK P. MONSARRAT, Case No.
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF
CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE,
V. MISREPRESENTATION, AND
DECLARATORY RELIEF
MARVIN FLOR dba GOOD RELATIONS
BUILDER, SCOTT BOGART dba GOOD
mflmmt—‘OOCOVODU‘l-hooN—‘O
iiiilmll/mmmmi
Plaintiff Mark P. Monsarrat alleges:
1.
[\JNNNNNNNN—LAAAAAAAAA
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Written Contract)
1. Plaintiff Mark P. Monsarrat is an individual owning real property at 862 Blandford
Boulevard, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California (referred to in this complaint as the
“House”). The matters alleged in this complaint occurred in San Mateo County.
2. Defendant Marvin Flor dba Good Relations Builders (“Flor”) is an individual residing
in San Mateo County, California, with his principal place of business in Redwood City,
California. At all relevant times, Flor held himself out as properly licensed to perform work that
may only be performed lawfully by a general building contractor and as someone skilled in home
_X
remodeling. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Flor was not licensed in any contracting trade
and was not the employee of any licensed individual or company at the relevant times.
3. Defendant Scott Bogart also dba Good Relations Builders (“Bogart”) is an individual
residing in San Mateo County, California, with his principal place of business in Redwood City,
California, and who was licensed asva general building contractor in the State of California
during relevant times and until March 31, 20174, when his license expired. Plaintiff is informed
and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevanttimes, Bogart allowed Flor to use Bogart’s
general building contractor license number on contract documents and solicitations and to
represent to members of the public, such as plaintiff, directly and indirectly that Bogart was
supervising and managing all contracting work of F101 even though Bogart did nothing except
receive payments illegally for the mere use of his general building contractor license number
4. Plaintiff Is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times, Flor,
Bogart, and Doc 1 to Doe 9 acted in concert asl“GOOd Relations Builders” (collectively “Good
Relations Defendants”), each receiving a portion of plaintiff’s funds withOut regard for the
of work that each performed. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such infor-
\IO)(D-t—AOCOCDNOUUTkQJN—‘OCOCDNGCHhOJN
amount
mation and belief alleges that at all times herein mentioned, each of the Good Relations Defen-
dants was a partner, joint ventuI er agent, servant and/or 00- conspirator of each of the remaining
Good Relations Defendants and was, in the doing of things herein complained of, acting within
NNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA
the course and scope of such partnership, joint venture, agency, service, and/or conspiracy and
therefore 1s responsible fer damages to plaintiff as alleged hereafter.
5. The true names and capacities of defendants Doe l through Doe 50 are unknown to
plaintiff who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of
court to amend this complaint when such true names and capacities have been ascertained.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of Doe I through Doe 50
is responsible in sOme manner for the events and happenings herein referred to and is therefore
responsible to plaintiff as hereinafter set forth. At all times’mentioned, each of the defendants
was an agent of each of the remaining defendants and, in doing the things alleged below, was
28 acting in the course and scope of such
agency.
Warhurst Law Office
200 Main St. Ste 21 COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESENTATION, DEC RELIEF
Redwood City, CA 94063
(650) 288-3390
, -,
17CIV
_ 2 ,
6. Plaintiff purchased the House and closed escrow on July 28, 2014.
7. On or about July 29, 2014, plaintiff and the Good Relations Defendants entered into
a design-build contractto remodel the House, memorialized in writing by an email of the same
date from Flor (“Contract”), a true copy Of which is attached to the complaint as Exhibit 1 and
OLO(X)\ICDU‘I-I>CAJI\)—x
incorporated by reference herein. By the Contract, the Good Relations Defendants agreed to
design and implement 25 cOnstruction items for the House for a total price of $350, 000. The
work included the hiring of all designers, architects, and engineers needed to perform the
Contract according to all applicable laws and codes and good building practices.
8. The Good Relations Defendants demanded that plaintiff pay at least $30,000 per
month regardless of the work and service, if any, actually performed pursuant to the Contract or ‘
the materials actually purchased or delivm ed pursuant to the Contract. Plaintiff paid Flor for the
Good Relations Defendants the following sums on the indicated dates:
“Deposit Number” Date Check # Amount
i
'
1 8/6/2014 110 $30,000
'
2 8/25/2014 112 $16,500
'
‘
3 9/23/2014 114 $22,500
‘
'
4 10/14/2014 116 $25,000
NNNNNNNNA—X—X—L—XA—l—l—LA
'
5 10/28/2014 118 $5,000
'
\ICDU'I-h()13[\D—XCDHDW\IOT‘UT-PCJOI\3—x
6 11/19/2014 120 $25,000
I I i V
7 12/17/2014 122 $25,000
' '
8 1/20/2015 123 $30,000
9 2/23/2015 125 $30,000
1
10 3/20/2015 126 $30,000
TOTAL $239,000
9. On or about April 30, 2015, plaintiff and the Geod Relations Defendants entered into
a revised contract (“Revised Contract”j with 35 items listed as included in the scope of work.
The total cost of materials and labor stated in the Revised contract was $590,000. A true and
28 correct copy of the writing signed by Flor and plaintiff memorializing the Revised Contract is
Warhurst Law Office
200 Main St, Ste 21 COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESENTATION, DEC RELIEF
Redwood City, CA 94063
(650) 288-3390 17CIV
_ 3 _
attached as Exhibit 2. The Revised Contract incorporated all of the previously made deposits for
the Contract as funds applicable to the Revised Contract.
10. The Contract and Revised Contract both included a common-law duty to perform
with care, skill, reasonable expedience, and faithfulness each matter set out therein to be
performed by the Good Relations Defendants. The common-law duty includes compliance with
OCOOtJ\lCDCJ'l-hCAJKJ—k
all applicable laws, including contractor licensing laws.
11. As of December 16, 2015, the Good Relations Defendants claimed to have spent
$71,929.10 in services and materials pursuant to the Contract and Revised Contact and to have
in hand for plaintiff‘s sole benefit the “deposit” balance of $167,070.40. A true copy of the
accounting provided by the Good Relations Defendants is attached to the complaint as Exhibit 3
‘
—‘
and incorporated by reference herein.
N 12. Plaintiff has demanded that Good Relations Defendants return plaintiff’s funds. In
(.0 response, Good Relations has made three payments totaling $10,000, but has refused to return
A
A
A the rest of plaintift’ s funds.
01 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the true facts were that as
of December 16, 2015, the Good Relations Defendants were in breach of the Contract and
\l,03
Revised Contract, because the alleged services provided were worthless to plaintiff, the
NMNMNNNNAA—XAAAA—XA—k
oo “services” performed damaged the HOuse and greatly delayedthe project, and the Good
(0 Relations Defendants had not retained plaintiff’s “deposit” but squandered all of it on personal
0 expenses of Flor, Bogart, and the remaining defendants.
—-¥
14. The work to be performed by the Good Relations Defendants pursuant to the
N Contract and the Revised Contract was work for which one or more contractor’s licenses were
03 required pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 7026, et seq. Plaintiff is informed
h and believes and thereon alleges that while Bogart was licensed as a general contractor, Flor
01 was unlawfully paying Bogart to use his license number and business name “Good Relations
O3 Builders” even though Bogart did not exercise direct supervision and control of construction
\I operations in violation of Business and Professions Code section 7068.1. Accordingly, the Good
28
Warhurst Law Office
200 Main St, Ste 21 COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESENTATION, DEC RELIEF
Redwood City, CA 94063 '
(650) 28843390 17CIV
_ 4-
Relations Defendants were not lawfully licensed and must refund all $239,000 paid by plaintiff
pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 7031.
15. Plaintiff performed all conditions, covenants, and promises on plaintiffs part to be
performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract and the Revised Contract.
OCO<23\ICDCJ‘I-I>s(.\.)l\)-A
16. As a result of Good Relations Defendants’ breach of the Contract and Revised
Contract, plaintiff has been damaged in that he has incurred costs for investigation, permits,
repairs, and remediation; will incur additional expenses for investigation, testing, permits and
repairs; has suffered loss of use and occupancy of the House since August 2014; suffered
diminution of value of the House; suffered damages for lost opportunities because plaintiff
could not sell his existing residence as he intended; and has not received the work specified by
-\ the Contract or Revised Contract despite having given the Good Relations Defendants $239,000
N and receiving back only $10,000. Plaintiff presently estimates that his damages exceed
00 $1,200,000, all in amounts to be proved at the time of trial.
A 11.
01 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
0) (Negligence Against All Defendants)
NMNNNNNN—l—L—L—L—k—lA—X—L—k
\l 17. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 16 of the complaint.
03 18. The defendants, and each of them, designed, installed, and constructed plans for or
CO “improvements” to the House, but the defendants negligently, carelessly, tortuously, and
O wrongfully failed to use reasonable care in the design, manufacture, construction, installation,
-\ and implementation of the contracted work.
N 19. As a proximate and legal result of the negligence of the defendants, and each of
(A) them, the work performed pursuant to the contract is defective and has damaged the House;
h plaintiff has been required to expend sums to investigate and make temporary repairs to the
01 House; plaintiff will incur and has incurred repair costs, relocation expenses, and loss of use;
and plaintiff has been, and continues to be, damaged in an amount to be proven at trial,
\lhm
presently estimated to be at least $1,200,000.
28
Wamurst Law Office
200 Main St, Ste 21 COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESEN'I‘ATION, DEc RELIEF
Redwood City. CA 94063
(650) 288-3390 17CIV
_ 5 _
20. As a further proximate and legal result of the negligence of defendants, and each of
them, plaintiff may incur loss of market value in an amount to be proven at trial.
III.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Misrepresentation Against Flor, Bogart, and Doe I to Doe 19)
OCDQNCDU‘l-hOONA
21. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 20 of the complaint.
22. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that defendants Flor,
Bogart, and Doe 1 through 19 negligently or intentionally misrepresented to plaintiff that Good
Relations Builders was properly licensed as a general building contractor (Class B) in its work
related to the House. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that while Bogart
was licensed as a general contractor, Flor was unlawfully paying Bogart to use his license
number and business name “Good Relations Builders” for work related to the House such that
Bogart did not exercise direct supervision and control of construction operations for the House
in violation of Business and Professions Code section 7068.1.
23. In addition, plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that
defendant Flor represented that he was qualified by skill, training, and licensing to perform the
work required by the Contract and the Revised Contract. The truth was that Flor was not
NMNNNNNNAA—AAA—A—AA—LA
qualified to perform nor adequately skilled to perform the work required by the Contract and the
NQGAQNAOCDGJNCDUI-tA
Revised Contract.
24. Defendants made these misrepresentations without a reasonable basis for
believing that the representations were true.
25. At the time these misrepresentations were made, plaintiff was ignorant of the
falsity of the representations. In reliance on these misrepresentations, plaintiff entered into the
Contract and Revised Contract and gave the Good Relations‘Defendants money as previously
alleged even though the Good Relations Defendants could not lawfully receive funds for
construction activities, could not lawfully provide construction services, could not lawfully
obtain building permits, and could not lawfully perform the Contract or Revised Contract.
28
Wamurst Law Office
200 Main St, Ste 21 COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESENTATION, DEC RELIEF
Redwood City, CA 94063
(650) 288-3390 17CIV
_ 6 _
26. Plaintiff became aware of the falsity of the representations of Good Relations
Defendants and their violations of the contracting law on or about December 10, 2015. Plaintiff
terminated the contract with Good Relations Defendants on December 22, 2015.
27. As a direct and proximate result of the misrepresentations by defendants,
(OWNCDCN-PsooNA
plaintiff has and will suffer special and general damages in the amount of $1,200,000 or more
all in amounts to be proven at trial.
28. In doing the foregoing acts, Flor, Bogart, and Doe I to Doe l9, and each of them,
acted maliciously, fraudulently, and willfully, and the acts constituted a fraudulent scheme on
the part of such defendants to extract funds from plaintiff by means of fraud, trickery, and
deliberate falsehood; by reason of which plaintiff seeks exemplary and punitive damages
against said Flor, Bogart, and Doc lto Doe 19.
I
IV.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Relief)
29. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 28 of the complaint.
30. A controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to their respective
rights and duties arising out of the Contract and Revised Contract. Plaintiff contends that
defendants have breached the Contract and Revised Contract, violated the Contractors' State
NNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA
License Law (Business and Professions Code sections 7000—7191), negligently constructed
\JCDO'IAOON—‘OCOCONCDU‘l-FODN—‘O
(and deconstructed) improvements at the House, violated standards of construction and design,
and made misrepresentations of fact. Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendants contend
otherwise and deny liability to plaintiff.
31. Plaintiff has no speedy or adequate remedy in law.
32. Accordingly, plaintiff seeks the declaration of this Court as to the rights and
responsibilities of all parties arising out of the Contract and Revised Contract.
///
///
28
Wamurst Law Office
200 Main St, Ste 21
Redwood City, CA 94063
(650) 288-3390
COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESENTATION, DEC RELIEF
_ 7 _
17CIV —
THEREFORE, a plaintiff seeks a judgment against the defendants as follows:
1. For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof, including
investigation and remediation expenses, in the amount of at least $1,200,000;
2. For a refund of all monies paid to defendants that have not been returned;
2. For special and consequential damages in an amount according to proof;
OCCCDNCDU‘l-hOJN—k
3. For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish the
defendants and set an example for others;
4. For costs of suit herein; and
5. For such further relief as the court deems just and proper.
Dated: July 10, 2017 WARHURST LAW OFFICE
By: [A )Aflflwl/UOAQM
William R. Warhurst
Attorneys for Plaintiff Mark P. Monsarrat.
NMNNNNNNA—XA—L—L—LA—AAA
\lCDU1-5OJNAOCOCDNCDU1-booN—A
28
Wamurst Law Office
200 Main St, Ste 21 COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESENTATION, DEC RELIEF
Redwood City, CA 94063
(650) 288-3390 17CIV
_ 8 _
People
0 Good Relations builders
07/29/14 at 10:34 PM
To
. MARKMONSARRAT@SREDA_CTED
Hide
Message body
Proposal # 1
Scope of work as follow according to first desire drawings.
Items:
1.) Back left wing of home add a living studio with wet bar also remove existing fire place add new
skylights .
2.) Back right wing of home add one new bedroom and convert old bedroom into new living room area
plus ensuite bath
and add new half bath.
3.) Left wing behind garage convert into new mud room and new laundry room.
4.) Front left side of home add third garage also move relocate kitchen to back existing dining room and
family room area
5.) Interior center wall to be moved northward for new kitchen.
6.) Interior right side of home new separate entry guest quarters . no hallway desire:But soundproof
desire.
7.) Interior right side of home remodel both bathrooms.
8.) New foundation for new work. Pour of concrete included
9.) Complete demolition for all propose work.
10.) Complete rough framing for all propose work.
11.) Completion of all new roof work to match existing.
12.) Replace new doors throughout.
13.) Replace windows throughout.
14.) Upgrade all electrical in existing house and complete new electa for new construction. ( Install
LED wnlights .
throughout.)
15.) Upgrade plumbing in existing house and complete new for construction.
16.) Upgrade heating and add new air condition .
17.) Relocate water heaters.
18.) Add new stone in front of home where existingvbrick is now on.
EXHIBIT 1
19.) Complete all drywall work.
20.) Replace and add new trims. baseboard and mouldings throughout and for new construction.
21.) Replace floors throughout and install new for new construction.
22.) Install new cabinets
23.) Install new appliances
24.) Install new granite counter tops and glass back splash.
25.) Complete all exterior and interior painting on existing and new work.
Total cost $ 350,000.00 Labor and materials Included in this proposal.
Note: All Drawings require for the city and for this project are also included in this
proposal.
All city permits will be pay by home owner. Also cost of this proposal is
subject to change if
any additional work is added or remove.
! Thank you and looking forward in making business with you !
M
Good Relations Builders
Liar/07947
1143 Madison Ave.
Redwood cm}, CA. 94061
Phone# 650-701-5509
Job Address: 862 Blandford blvd.
Redwood City, CA. 94061
EXHIBIT 2
04-30-1 5
Good Relations Builders Lic#707947
I {43 Madison Ava.
Redwood Cily.CA
Cell: 650402 45509
Project: New czdcfiflons on 1d Remodel
LDemofifioh of ex'sflng roof and walls.
2.5xccwaflon for new ioundafions.
3.Fo:m 'for new laundoiion.
4.1mm" all hardware forlnew‘fomduficn.
5.Dhmsal of ex Sci! er: lob siie
Note: All work win he dene according kc drawings. 1-5 580.0% $90,000 ' 190
04—304 5
Good Relations Builders Lic #707947
1143 Madison Ave.
Redwood CiEy.CA
Cell: 650-701-5509
Proiect: New addilicns and Remodel
6.Undetfloor homing for new additions.
75ub floor framing fr.» new additions.
8.Rough framing icr new wolis throughout.
9.Rough ironing fcr new roof ihroughoul.
l0.:nsiail shingles for new root.
HJnsiailofion of new windows lhroughoui.
EZJnsIoHniion of doors Ihroughoat.
’3 .
Note: All work will be clone-according io-drawings.
_ 642 $75,000 $70,003
11%;
04-304 5
Good Relallons Builders Lic#707947
1I43 Madison Ave.
Redwood Cily.CA
Cell: 650-701-5509
Project: New oddillcrss Cll v.1 Remodel
!3.Elec~11ic<:l. Rough and finish lo be compleleo'.
l4.R0ugh Plumbing c1116 finish lb be com’ble‘eo.
l5.lnsloll new lumoce and duct work 'rhroughoul.
t «Install new water neolets.
Note: All wo'k will be done according to drawings. $25300 $30,000 .3! 5"5'
04-804 5
Good Relations Builders Lic#707947
1M3 Madison Ave.
Redwosd Clly,CA
Cell: 650-70! £509
Project New oddillcns and Remodel
I7.lnsloll chicken wire for slucqo lhrwghoul exlerior.
EB-Apply scratch mat of stucco fhroughoul exlerlor walls.
WApply brown coat of slucco lhraughml oxlerlor walls.
20.Appzy llnlsh coat or stucco throughoul exleriorwolls.
21.!nsloll insulaflon on cellings and exierior walls.
22.1-(0ng drywall on ceilings and walls :11: oughoul ‘nlericr.
23.lnslal! 'a
mudd with lexlure or smooth walls or clients choice.
lhroughoul celrmgs-and walls.
2490311? lnlerior house.
25.Poinl Exterior house.
'
Nole: All week wfll be done according to drawings. 17-25 $35.03!]
041301 5
Good Relations Builders Lic#707947
l 1213 Macfison Ave.
Redwood City.CA
Ceu::650-701—5509
Erbiéct: New additions and Remodel
26.Hordwood Room.
27.13%
28~Cabinets tor'kitchen.
29Bo'1nroém Vanities.
30.To!lets, tubs.
31 .clhmom fixtures.
32.!(chen fbdures
33.0ranife laps
34.wind‘ows
35.Doe;s
35.6crgge door
More: All won: will be done according to drawings. 26-32 $90,005 same § 19'?)
.
04-30-15
agreement Contract
Builder: Scott f. Bogart
President: Marvin Her
Home Owner: Mark Mosarrat
Note: Any additiona! work or changed order will be an additional cost.
.{owpqlforMaflcMomgatjyed
edonBlandfgrq_ ______
3_F9rGoodW_'Buflders —-..— _. - .- mu —
._
- .
__J
—
*5 E? WWW (DgpllTOLl _____,Dep1<,i
133000.909“
__
Preview
William R. Warhurst (SB#95551) WARHURST LAW OFFICE 200 Main Street, Suite 21 Redwood City, CA 94063 Telephone: (650) 288-3390 Facsimile: (650) 568-0800 IL ED 9‘NMATI: ‘ . Attorneys for Plaintiff COOONOU‘l-booN—k Mark P. Monsarrat SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN MATEO COUNTY UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 17 C i V 0 3 Q 9 8 MARK P. MONSARRAT, Case No. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, V. MISREPRESENTATION, AND DECLARATORY RELIEF MARVIN FLOR dba GOOD RELATIONS BUILDER, SCOTT BOGART dba GOOD mflmmt—‘OOCOVODU‘l-hooN—‘O iiiilmll/mmmmi Plaintiff Mark P. Monsarrat alleges: 1. [\JNNNNNNNN—LAAAAAAAAA FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Written Contract) 1. Plaintiff Mark P. Monsarrat is an individual owning real property at 862 Blandford Boulevard, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California (referred to in this complaint as the “House”). The matters alleged in this complaint occurred in San Mateo County. 2. Defendant Marvin Flor dba Good Relations Builders (“Flor”) is an individual residing in San Mateo County, California, with his principal place of business in Redwood City, California. At all relevant times, Flor held himself out as properly licensed to perform work that may only be performed lawfully by a general building contractor and as someone skilled in home _X remodeling. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Flor was not licensed in any contracting trade and was not the employee of any licensed individual or company at the relevant times. 3. Defendant Scott Bogart also dba Good Relations Builders (“Bogart”) is an individual residing in San Mateo County, California, with his principal place of business in Redwood City, California, and who was licensed asva general building contractor in the State of California during relevant times and until March 31, 20174, when his license expired. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevanttimes, Bogart allowed Flor to use Bogart’s general building contractor license number on contract documents and solicitations and to represent to members of the public, such as plaintiff, directly and indirectly that Bogart was supervising and managing all contracting work of F101 even though Bogart did nothing except receive payments illegally for the mere use of his general building contractor license number 4. Plaintiff Is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all relevant times, Flor, Bogart, and Doc 1 to Doe 9 acted in concert asl“GOOd Relations Builders” (collectively “Good Relations Defendants”), each receiving a portion of plaintiff’s funds withOut regard for the of work that each performed. Plaintiff is informed and believes and upon such infor- \IO)(D-t—AOCOCDNOUUTkQJN—‘OCOCDNGCHhOJN amount mation and belief alleges that at all times herein mentioned, each of the Good Relations Defen- dants was a partner, joint ventuI er agent, servant and/or 00- conspirator of each of the remaining Good Relations Defendants and was, in the doing of things herein complained of, acting within NNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA the course and scope of such partnership, joint venture, agency, service, and/or conspiracy and therefore 1s responsible fer damages to plaintiff as alleged hereafter. 5. The true names and capacities of defendants Doe l through Doe 50 are unknown to plaintiff who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this complaint when such true names and capacities have been ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that each of Doe I through Doe 50 is responsible in sOme manner for the events and happenings herein referred to and is therefore responsible to plaintiff as hereinafter set forth. At all times’mentioned, each of the defendants was an agent of each of the remaining defendants and, in doing the things alleged below, was 28 acting in the course and scope of such agency. Warhurst Law Office 200 Main St. Ste 21 COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESENTATION, DEC RELIEF Redwood City, CA 94063 (650) 288-3390 , -, 17CIV _ 2 , 6. Plaintiff purchased the House and closed escrow on July 28, 2014. 7. On or about July 29, 2014, plaintiff and the Good Relations Defendants entered into a design-build contractto remodel the House, memorialized in writing by an email of the same date from Flor (“Contract”), a true copy Of which is attached to the complaint as Exhibit 1 and OLO(X)\ICDU‘I-I>CAJI\)—x incorporated by reference herein. By the Contract, the Good Relations Defendants agreed to design and implement 25 cOnstruction items for the House for a total price of $350, 000. The work included the hiring of all designers, architects, and engineers needed to perform the Contract according to all applicable laws and codes and good building practices. 8. The Good Relations Defendants demanded that plaintiff pay at least $30,000 per month regardless of the work and service, if any, actually performed pursuant to the Contract or ‘ the materials actually purchased or delivm ed pursuant to the Contract. Plaintiff paid Flor for the Good Relations Defendants the following sums on the indicated dates: “Deposit Number” Date Check # Amount i ' 1 8/6/2014 110 $30,000 ' 2 8/25/2014 112 $16,500 ' ‘ 3 9/23/2014 114 $22,500 ‘ ' 4 10/14/2014 116 $25,000 NNNNNNNNA—X—X—L—XA—l—l—LA ' 5 10/28/2014 118 $5,000 ' \ICDU'I-h()13[\D—XCDHDW\IOT‘UT-PCJOI\3—x 6 11/19/2014 120 $25,000 I I i V 7 12/17/2014 122 $25,000 ' ' 8 1/20/2015 123 $30,000 9 2/23/2015 125 $30,000 1 10 3/20/2015 126 $30,000 TOTAL $239,000 9. On or about April 30, 2015, plaintiff and the Geod Relations Defendants entered into a revised contract (“Revised Contract”j with 35 items listed as included in the scope of work. The total cost of materials and labor stated in the Revised contract was $590,000. A true and 28 correct copy of the writing signed by Flor and plaintiff memorializing the Revised Contract is Warhurst Law Office 200 Main St, Ste 21 COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESENTATION, DEC RELIEF Redwood City, CA 94063 (650) 288-3390 17CIV _ 3 _ attached as Exhibit 2. The Revised Contract incorporated all of the previously made deposits for the Contract as funds applicable to the Revised Contract. 10. The Contract and Revised Contract both included a common-law duty to perform with care, skill, reasonable expedience, and faithfulness each matter set out therein to be performed by the Good Relations Defendants. The common-law duty includes compliance with OCOOtJ\lCDCJ'l-hCAJKJ—k all applicable laws, including contractor licensing laws. 11. As of December 16, 2015, the Good Relations Defendants claimed to have spent $71,929.10 in services and materials pursuant to the Contract and Revised Contact and to have in hand for plaintiff‘s sole benefit the “deposit” balance of $167,070.40. A true copy of the accounting provided by the Good Relations Defendants is attached to the complaint as Exhibit 3 ‘ —‘ and incorporated by reference herein. N 12. Plaintiff has demanded that Good Relations Defendants return plaintiff’s funds. In (.0 response, Good Relations has made three payments totaling $10,000, but has refused to return A A A the rest of plaintift’ s funds. 01 13. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the true facts were that as of December 16, 2015, the Good Relations Defendants were in breach of the Contract and \l,03 Revised Contract, because the alleged services provided were worthless to plaintiff, the NMNMNNNNAA—XAAAA—XA—k oo “services” performed damaged the HOuse and greatly delayedthe project, and the Good (0 Relations Defendants had not retained plaintiff’s “deposit” but squandered all of it on personal 0 expenses of Flor, Bogart, and the remaining defendants. —-¥ 14. The work to be performed by the Good Relations Defendants pursuant to the N Contract and the Revised Contract was work for which one or more contractor’s licenses were 03 required pursuant to Business and Professions Code sections 7026, et seq. Plaintiff is informed h and believes and thereon alleges that while Bogart was licensed as a general contractor, Flor 01 was unlawfully paying Bogart to use his license number and business name “Good Relations O3 Builders” even though Bogart did not exercise direct supervision and control of construction \I operations in violation of Business and Professions Code section 7068.1. Accordingly, the Good 28 Warhurst Law Office 200 Main St, Ste 21 COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESENTATION, DEC RELIEF Redwood City, CA 94063 ' (650) 28843390 17CIV _ 4- Relations Defendants were not lawfully licensed and must refund all $239,000 paid by plaintiff pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 7031. 15. Plaintiff performed all conditions, covenants, and promises on plaintiffs part to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Contract and the Revised Contract. OCO<23\ICDCJ‘I-I>s(.\.)l\)-A 16. As a result of Good Relations Defendants’ breach of the Contract and Revised Contract, plaintiff has been damaged in that he has incurred costs for investigation, permits, repairs, and remediation; will incur additional expenses for investigation, testing, permits and repairs; has suffered loss of use and occupancy of the House since August 2014; suffered diminution of value of the House; suffered damages for lost opportunities because plaintiff could not sell his existing residence as he intended; and has not received the work specified by -\ the Contract or Revised Contract despite having given the Good Relations Defendants $239,000 N and receiving back only $10,000. Plaintiff presently estimates that his damages exceed 00 $1,200,000, all in amounts to be proved at the time of trial. A 11. 01 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 0) (Negligence Against All Defendants) NMNNNNNN—l—L—L—L—k—lA—X—L—k \l 17. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 16 of the complaint. 03 18. The defendants, and each of them, designed, installed, and constructed plans for or CO “improvements” to the House, but the defendants negligently, carelessly, tortuously, and O wrongfully failed to use reasonable care in the design, manufacture, construction, installation, -\ and implementation of the contracted work. N 19. As a proximate and legal result of the negligence of the defendants, and each of (A) them, the work performed pursuant to the contract is defective and has damaged the House; h plaintiff has been required to expend sums to investigate and make temporary repairs to the 01 House; plaintiff will incur and has incurred repair costs, relocation expenses, and loss of use; and plaintiff has been, and continues to be, damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, \lhm presently estimated to be at least $1,200,000. 28 Wamurst Law Office 200 Main St, Ste 21 COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESEN'I‘ATION, DEc RELIEF Redwood City. CA 94063 (650) 288-3390 17CIV _ 5 _ 20. As a further proximate and legal result of the negligence of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff may incur loss of market value in an amount to be proven at trial. III. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Misrepresentation Against Flor, Bogart, and Doe I to Doe 19) OCDQNCDU‘l-hOONA 21. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 20 of the complaint. 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that defendants Flor, Bogart, and Doe 1 through 19 negligently or intentionally misrepresented to plaintiff that Good Relations Builders was properly licensed as a general building contractor (Class B) in its work related to the House. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that while Bogart was licensed as a general contractor, Flor was unlawfully paying Bogart to use his license number and business name “Good Relations Builders” for work related to the House such that Bogart did not exercise direct supervision and control of construction operations for the House in violation of Business and Professions Code section 7068.1. 23. In addition, plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that defendant Flor represented that he was qualified by skill, training, and licensing to perform the work required by the Contract and the Revised Contract. The truth was that Flor was not NMNNNNNNAA—AAA—A—AA—LA qualified to perform nor adequately skilled to perform the work required by the Contract and the NQGAQNAOCDGJNCDUI-tA Revised Contract. 24. Defendants made these misrepresentations without a reasonable basis for believing that the representations were true. 25. At the time these misrepresentations were made, plaintiff was ignorant of the falsity of the representations. In reliance on these misrepresentations, plaintiff entered into the Contract and Revised Contract and gave the Good Relations‘Defendants money as previously alleged even though the Good Relations Defendants could not lawfully receive funds for construction activities, could not lawfully provide construction services, could not lawfully obtain building permits, and could not lawfully perform the Contract or Revised Contract. 28 Wamurst Law Office 200 Main St, Ste 21 COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESENTATION, DEC RELIEF Redwood City, CA 94063 (650) 288-3390 17CIV _ 6 _ 26. Plaintiff became aware of the falsity of the representations of Good Relations Defendants and their violations of the contracting law on or about December 10, 2015. Plaintiff terminated the contract with Good Relations Defendants on December 22, 2015. 27. As a direct and proximate result of the misrepresentations by defendants, (OWNCDCN-PsooNA plaintiff has and will suffer special and general damages in the amount of $1,200,000 or more all in amounts to be proven at trial. 28. In doing the foregoing acts, Flor, Bogart, and Doe I to Doe l9, and each of them, acted maliciously, fraudulently, and willfully, and the acts constituted a fraudulent scheme on the part of such defendants to extract funds from plaintiff by means of fraud, trickery, and deliberate falsehood; by reason of which plaintiff seeks exemplary and punitive damages against said Flor, Bogart, and Doc lto Doe 19. I IV. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Declaratory Relief) 29. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 28 of the complaint. 30. A controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties as to their respective rights and duties arising out of the Contract and Revised Contract. Plaintiff contends that defendants have breached the Contract and Revised Contract, violated the Contractors' State NNNNNNNNAAAAAAAAAA License Law (Business and Professions Code sections 7000—7191), negligently constructed \JCDO'IAOON—‘OCOCONCDU‘l-FODN—‘O (and deconstructed) improvements at the House, violated standards of construction and design, and made misrepresentations of fact. Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendants contend otherwise and deny liability to plaintiff. 31. Plaintiff has no speedy or adequate remedy in law. 32. Accordingly, plaintiff seeks the declaration of this Court as to the rights and responsibilities of all parties arising out of the Contract and Revised Contract. /// /// 28 Wamurst Law Office 200 Main St, Ste 21 Redwood City, CA 94063 (650) 288-3390 COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESENTATION, DEC RELIEF _ 7 _ 17CIV — THEREFORE, a plaintiff seeks a judgment against the defendants as follows: 1. For compensatory damages in an amount according to proof, including investigation and remediation expenses, in the amount of at least $1,200,000; 2. For a refund of all monies paid to defendants that have not been returned; 2. For special and consequential damages in an amount according to proof; OCCCDNCDU‘l-hOJN—k 3. For exemplary and punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish the defendants and set an example for others; 4. For costs of suit herein; and 5. For such further relief as the court deems just and proper. Dated: July 10, 2017 WARHURST LAW OFFICE By: [A )Aflflwl/UOAQM William R. Warhurst Attorneys for Plaintiff Mark P. Monsarrat. NMNNNNNNA—XA—L—L—LA—AAA \lCDU1-5OJNAOCOCDNCDU1-booN—A 28 Wamurst Law Office 200 Main St, Ste 21 COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, MISREPRESENTATION, DEC RELIEF Redwood City, CA 94063 (650) 288-3390 17CIV _ 8 _ People 0 Good Relations builders 07/29/14 at 10:34 PM To . MARKMONSARRAT@SREDA_CTED Hide Message body Proposal # 1 Scope of work as follow according to first desire drawings. Items: 1.) Back left wing of home add a living studio with wet bar also remove existing fire place add new skylights . 2.) Back right wing of home add one new bedroom and convert old bedroom into new living room area plus ensuite bath and add new half bath. 3.) Left wing behind garage convert into new mud room and new laundry room. 4.) Front left side of home add third garage also move relocate kitchen to back existing dining room and family room area 5.) Interior center wall to be moved northward for new kitchen. 6.) Interior right side of home new separate entry guest quarters . no hallway desire:But soundproof desire. 7.) Interior right side of home remodel both bathrooms. 8.) New foundation for new work. Pour of concrete included 9.) Complete demolition for all propose work. 10.) Complete rough framing for all propose work. 11.) Completion of all new roof work to match existing. 12.) Replace new doors throughout. 13.) Replace windows throughout. 14.) Upgrade all electrical in existing house and complete new electa for new construction. ( Install LED wnlights . throughout.) 15.) Upgrade plumbing in existing house and complete new for construction. 16.) Upgrade heating and add new air condition . 17.) Relocate water heaters. 18.) Add new stone in front of home where existingvbrick is now on. EXHIBIT 1 19.) Complete all drywall work. 20.) Replace and add new trims. baseboard and mouldings throughout and for new construction. 21.) Replace floors throughout and install new for new construction. 22.) Install new cabinets 23.) Install new appliances 24.) Install new granite counter tops and glass back splash. 25.) Complete all exterior and interior painting on existing and new work. Total cost $ 350,000.00 Labor and materials Included in this proposal. Note: All Drawings require for the city and for this project are also included in this proposal. All city permits will be pay by home owner. Also cost of this proposal is subject to change if any additional work is added or remove. ! Thank you and looking forward in making business with you ! M Good Relations Builders Liar/07947 1143 Madison Ave. Redwood cm}, CA. 94061 Phone# 650-701-5509 Job Address: 862 Blandford blvd. Redwood City, CA. 94061 EXHIBIT 2 04-30-1 5 Good Relations Builders Lic#707947 I {43 Madison Ava. Redwood Cily.CA Cell: 650402 45509 Project: New czdcfiflons on 1d Remodel LDemofifioh of ex'sflng roof and walls. 2.5xccwaflon for new ioundafions. 3.Fo:m 'for new laundoiion. 4.1mm" all hardware forlnew‘fomduficn. 5.Dhmsal of ex Sci! er: lob siie Note: All work win he dene according kc drawings. 1-5 580.0% $90,000 ' 190 04—304 5 Good Relations Builders Lic #707947 1143 Madison Ave. Redwood CiEy.CA Cell: 650-701-5509 Proiect: New addilicns and Remodel 6.Undetfloor homing for new additions. 75ub floor framing fr.» new additions. 8.Rough framing icr new wolis throughout. 9.Rough ironing fcr new roof ihroughoul. l0.:nsiail shingles for new root. HJnsiailofion of new windows lhroughoui. EZJnsIoHniion of doors Ihroughoat. ’3 . Note: All work will be clone-according io-drawings. _ 642 $75,000 $70,003 11%; 04-304 5 Good Relallons Builders Lic#707947 1I43 Madison Ave. Redwood Cily.CA Cell: 650-701-5509 Project: New oddillcrss Cll v.1 Remodel !3.Elec~11ic<:l. Rough and finish lo be compleleo'. l4.R0ugh Plumbing c1116 finish lb be com’ble‘eo. l5.lnsloll new lumoce and duct work 'rhroughoul. t «Install new water neolets. Note: All wo'k will be done according to drawings. $25300 $30,000 .3! 5"5' 04-804 5 Good Relations Builders Lic#707947 1M3 Madison Ave. Redwosd Clly,CA Cell: 650-70! £509 Project New oddillcns and Remodel I7.lnsloll chicken wire for slucqo lhrwghoul exlerior. EB-Apply scratch mat of stucco fhroughoul exlerlor walls. WApply brown coat of slucco lhraughml oxlerlor walls. 20.Appzy llnlsh coat or stucco throughoul exleriorwolls. 21.!nsloll insulaflon on cellings and exierior walls. 22.1-(0ng drywall on ceilings and walls :11: oughoul ‘nlericr. 23.lnslal! 'a mudd with lexlure or smooth walls or clients choice. lhroughoul celrmgs-and walls. 2490311? lnlerior house. 25.Poinl Exterior house. ' Nole: All week wfll be done according to drawings. 17-25 $35.03!] 041301 5 Good Relations Builders Lic#707947 l 1213 Macfison Ave. Redwood City.CA Ceu::650-701—5509 Erbiéct: New additions and Remodel 26.Hordwood Room. 27.13% 28~Cabinets tor'kitchen. 29Bo'1nroém Vanities. 30.To!lets, tubs. 31 .clhmom fixtures. 32.!(chen fbdures 33.0ranife laps 34.wind‘ows 35.Doe;s 35.6crgge door More: All won: will be done according to drawings. 26-32 $90,005 same § 19'?) . 04-30-15 agreement Contract Builder: Scott f. Bogart President: Marvin Her Home Owner: Mark Mosarrat Note: Any additiona! work or changed order will be an additional cost. .{owpqlforMaflcMomgatjyed edonBlandfgrq_ ______ 3_F9rGoodW_'Buflders —-..— _. - .- mu — ._ - . __J — *5 E? WWW (DgpllTOLl _____,Dep1<,i 133000.909“ __