Preview
Port J. Parker (SBN 179256) Superior Court of California
R. Shane Quigley (SBN 300405) County of Butte
PARKER LAW GROUP ATTORNEYS
A Professional Corporation 2/5/2021
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1230
Sacramento, CA 95814 Flener, rk
Telephone: (916) 996-0400 By Deputy
ctronicafy FILED
Attorneys for James K. Marshall &
Daniel L. Johnson
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE
10
Case No.:21CV00277
11 JAMES K. MARSHALL &
DANIEL L. JOHNSON, COMPLAINT FOR:
12
Plaintiffs,
Conversion
13 Breach of Oral Contract
Violation of Business & Professions
14 V, Code § 7031
Civil Financial Elder Abuse
15 ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC, a California Negligence
Corporation, dba CALIFORNIA Negligent Hiring
16 RENOVATIONS; ROSEVILLE CARPET Fraud
Violation of Unfair Business Practices
ONE, a California General Partnership; and
8 17 EARL WILLIAM MANN, an individual,
Act, Business & Professions Code
17200
18
Defendants
19
20 James K. Marshall and Daniel L. Johnson (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), Debtors in Possession in
21 an underlying bankruptcy proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of
California, Sacramento Division, Case No. 18-25889B-11, now allege against Roseville Flooring, Inc.
22
23 and Earl William Mann (collectively, “Defendants”) as follows:
24 THE PARTIES
25 1 Debtor/Plaintiff James K. Marshall (“Marshall”) is an individual residing in
26 Sacramento, California. He is a Debtor in Possession in a concurrent above-described Chapter 11
case.
27
28 //1
COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC.
2 Debtor/Plaintiff Daniel L. Johnson (“Johnson”) is an individual residing in the Eastern
District of California. He is a Debtor in Possession in the above-described Chapter 11 case.
3 Defendant Roseville Flooring Inc. (“Roseville Flooring”) is a California corporation
conducting business in, inter alia, Placer and Butte County. Roseville Flooring also does business as
“California Renovations.” Plaintiffs are informed and believe that in addition to using the name
California Renovations, Roseville Flooring also use the fictious names, RCO Home Improvement,
RCO Flooring Outlet, RCO Tile & Stone, and Carpet One Floor and Home. Indeed, the website for
California Renovations states that “IF YOU’RE LOOKING FOR RCO HOME IMPROVEMENT,
CARPET ONE, RCO TILE & STONE, OR RCO FLOORING OUTLET, THAT’S STILL US.”
10 Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that to the extent that any of those names are registered as
11 separate legal entities, they are all the alter ego of Roseville Flooring and/or Earl Mann. Roseville
12 Flooring, Inc.’s contractor’s license, number 1038173, is registered at 1109 Smith Lane, Roseville,
13 CA 95661, with a contact telephone number of (916) 782-1188. Earl Mann is listed with the
14 Contractors State License Board as the qualifying individual for Roseville Flooring as an owner of
15 greater than ten percent (10%) of the voting stock of the company.
16 4 On information and belief, Roseville Carpet One (“RCO”) is a general partnership
8 17 conducting business in, inter alia, Placer and Butte County. On information and belief, Roseville
18 Carpet One is an interrelated entity with Roseville Flooring, Inc., as the California Renovations
19 website lists Roseville Carpet One as one of its locations. Further, Roseville Carpet One’s contractor’s
20 license, number 752412, is also registered at 1109 Smith Lane, Roseville, CA 95661, with a contact
21 telephone number of (916) 782-1188. Further, the Contractors State License Board lists this license
22 as being associated with Earl William Mann and his brother, Kelly Eugene Mann, as “Qualifying
23 partner” and “General Partner,” respectively. Taken together, the overlapping contractors licenses,
24 registrations, business locations & contact information, and advertising as the same entities renders
25 Roseville Flooring, RCO, and Mr. Mann as inseparably interrelated entities and individuals such that
26 there is no practical or legal distinction between them.
27 5 Defendant Earl William Mann (“Mann,” collectively with Roseville Flooring, Inc. and
28 Roseville Carpet One, “Defendants”), on information and belief, is an individual residing in Placer
COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC.
County.
6. Venue is proper in the Superior Court of California, County of Butte, under Cal. Code
Civ. Proc. Section 395, as the alleged injuries giving rise to this action occurred in the County of Butte.
Further, Plaintiffs’ Chapter 11 Plan specifically contemplates this action be filed in Butte County, as
stated by the underlying United States Bankruptcy Court order. A true and correct copy of this order
is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
7
Venue is further proper under this statute and established California law because the
contracts and obligations at issue and described herein were made or entered into in the County of
Butte.
10 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
11 8 Plaintiffs are the owners of a parcel of real property located at 4646 Pentz Road,
12 Paradise, California 95969 (the Pentz “Property”). The Pentz Property was heavily damaged in or
13 around November 2018, during the Camp Fire that devastated Paradise, California and other areas,
14 leaving a considerable amount of debris, damage, and cleanup work required. Much of the remediation
15 and cleanup work involved hazardous materials resulting from the Camp Fire, materials not normally
16 seen on a residential property site and subsequently requiring a great deal more expertise and licensing
8 17 to handle.
18 9 On November 12, 2018, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”)
19 declared the Camp Fire a Major Disaster. The Butte County Board of Supervisors subsequently issued
20 Ordinance No. 4152, which explicitly found that the Camp Fire created an extremely high potential
21 for widespread toxic exposures and threats to public health in the form of hazardous materials
22 produced by the wildfire.
23 10. Plaintiffs are also the owners of a piece of real property located at 1400 Rowena Way,
24 Sacramento CA 95864 (the "Rowena Property"). As discussed in more detail infra, Defendants
25 provided services to Plaintiffs in connection with the Rowena Property.
26 11. In or around May 31, 2019, Plaintiffs engaged Defendants to perform cleanup,
27 remediation, and repair work at the Pentz Property. Specifically, Defendants were initially engaged
28 to, inter alia, (1) remove from the property hazardous and non-hazardous debris and trash resulting
COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC.
from the Camp Fire, (2) make all necessary preparations to get approval from Butte County for water,
power, and other utilities, and (3) remove/repair foundation footings. Defendants represented
themselves as Contractor Earl Mann, performing work as a general partnership under the name
Roseville Carpet One, License No. 752412, and Roseville Flooring, Inc. doing business as California
Renovation, License No. 1038173.
12. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Roseville Flooring, Inc., License No. 1038173,
was licensed to perform only Class B — General Building, Class C15 — Flooring and Floor Covering,
C27 — Landscaping, and C54 — Tile (ceramic and mosaic) work. At all times relevant to this
Complaint, Roseville Carpet One, License No. 752412, was licensed to perform only Class B —
10 General Building, Class C15 — Flooring and Floor Covering, and Class C27 — Landscaping services.
11 On information and belief, these entities did not possess, inter alia, Class C-21 licenses for building
12 moving/demolition, C-12 licenses covering earthwork and hauling, or “A” general contracting
13 licenses.
14 13. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the individuals Nick Rodgers, Tyler Haining,
15 Desiree Rodgers, Lois Frazier, and Kelly Mann were employees and agents of Defendants. Nick
16 Rodgers represented in both written communications and quotes provided on Defendants’ behalf that
8 17 he was an employee, sales representative, and agent of Defendants.
18 14. On information and belief, Nick Rodgers fully disclosed to Defendants at the time he
19 was hired that he had a previous criminal history and had been investigated by the FBI, ultimately
20 resulting in legal proceedings in Tennessee. At all times relevant to this Complaint Defendants were
21 aware that Nick Rodgers had a troubled legal history.
22 15. On information and belief, Defendants made numerous false statements to Butte
23 County authorities for the purpose of obtaining permits and other official approvals necessary to take
24 advantage of the work opportunities presented by the devastation caused by the Camp Fire. Among
25 these false statements were the misrepresentation that Defendants possessed the necessary licensing —
26 including C-27 licenses to perform building moving/demolition work, and C-12 licenses for earthwork
27 and hauling, and “A” general contracting licenses — and the misrepresentation that Defendants were
28 engaged to rebuild Plaintiffs’ residence on the Pentz Property.
COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC.
16. At the time Defendants were being engaged by Plaintiffs to perform this work,
Defendants affirmatively misrepresented to Plaintiffs that Defendants held all the necessary and
required California licenses to perform building moving/demolition work, earthwork/hauling work,
and general contracting work. These representations were false at the time they were made. In April
2019, in a report to the Butte County Environmental Health Department (date stamped April 15, 2019),
Defendants represented that they were engaged for the purpose of and duly licensed to perform
moving/demolition work, earthwork/grading work in fire disaster areas, and generally perform disaster
remediation services at the Pentz Property. When Defendants made these misrepresentations to
Plaintiffs and to Butte County, Defendants were not properly licensed violated advertising
10 requirements for contractors, including but not limited to violations of Business and Professions Code
11 sections 7027.1, 7028.16, 7030.5, and 16 C.F.R. § 861, et seq. Further, Defendants knew at the time
12 they made the misrepresentations that they were not properly licensed. In an email dated on or about
13 October, 2019 Earl Mann explicitly observed that Defendants were acting outside the scope of their
14 licensing, stating “[w]e are allowed to due(sic) multiple services with a Generals license however we
15 are supposed to use a licensed contractor to perform these services. If we did a handful of jobs a year
16 we would probably be ok but if jobs begin to come in and we were to get busy and a complaint was
8 17 filed (CSLB) and it went to an investigation we would probably have to shut down the operation.”
18 17. On or around March 19, 2019, Plaintiffs purchased a John Deere backhoe for use in the
19 extensive repair work needed on the Pentz Property. Plaintiffs obtained a verbal agreement from
20 Defendants, through their agent and employee Nick Rodgers, that Plaintiffs would be compensated by
21 Defendants for Defendants’ use of the backhoe in the repair and restoration work. Not only were
22 Plaintiffs never compensated for Defendants’ use of the backhoe, but Defendants actually damaged
23 the backhoe to the point of inoperability. The damages included, but were not limited to, broken
24 windows, missing batteries, and extreme wear and tear far beyond what would reasonably be expected
25 for the amount or work required to be done on Plaintiffs’ property. Further, in or around October 2019
26 Defendants removed the backhoe from the Pentz Property without Plaintiffs’ permission, and it
27 remains missing as of the date of this Complaint.
28 //1
COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC.
18. On May 7, 2019, ina letter to Ms. Adrienne Walker, Butte County Hazardous Materials
Management Department, Defendants falsely claimed that they had been retained to perform “new
build” work at the Pentz Property, when in fact they had not been engaged for any construction or new
build work whatsoever. Defendants further falsely claimed in this communication that Nick Rodgers
was contractor for the project to remove debris from the Pentz Property. Defendants further falsely
claimed that all employees performing debris removal onsite would have 40-hour HAZWOPER
training before performing any work, which was also false.
19. On June 27, 2019, Defendants, through their employees and agents Nick and Desiree
Rodgers, provided to Plaintiffs a quote of $5,554.35 for flooring and insulation to be installed at the
10 Rowena Property. Nick Rodgers and Desiree were listed as “Sales Representatives” on the quote,
11 which was provided on California Renovations letterhead. No contract was ever provided to Plaintiffs
12 for this work, nor was a schedule of payments ever provided. Both the deposit and subsequent
13 payment checks were made out to California Renovations and were accepted by Desiree Rodgers on
14 California Renovations’ behalf. No complaint or issue regarding this arrangement was raised by
15 Defendants. In total, Plaintiffs paid approximately thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) to Defendants
16 for work at the Rowena Property.
8 17 20. On or about June 27, 2019, CSAA Insurance Group Claims Specialist Danielle Perez
18 highlighted a suspicious $64,000 charge for grading and soil at the Pentz Property, asking for a
19 separate cost related to this work as it was “not considered debris removal but actually part of the
20 rebuild cost,” which Defendants were not retained to perform. Defendants falsely claimed to Ms. Perez
21 that the costs were for trucking of 6” worth of material to a disposal site and related costs.
22 21. As of November 8, 2019, Plaintiffs had paid to Defendants and their employees over
23 one hundred sixty thousand dollars ($160,000.00) for cleanup work to be performed at the Pentz
24 Property. Despite having paid an exorbitant sum of money to Defendants, and Defendants ostensibly
25 working at the Pentz Property for approximately a year on necessary cleanup and repairs, extensive
26 further cleanup and repairs were still necessary. On information and belief, a substantial amount of
27 the debris still on the Pentz Property was in fact moved on to the Pentz Property by direction of Kelly
28 Mann, the brother of Contractor Earl Mann and Roseville Flooring co-owner. Defendants repeatedly
COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC.
dumped debris and trash on the Pentz Property throughout the time they were supposed to be
performing debris removal and remediation work for the damage caused by the Camp Fire.
22. On information and belief, Defendants submitted multiple false invoices and cost
justifications to Plaintiffs’ insurance carrier. In particular, Defendants submitted false invoices and
cost justifications for the payment of over $64,000 in grading services outside the scope of their
retention and that were never actually provided. When the Plaintiff's refused to pay out for the
unfinished and unsatisfactory work, Defendants threatened to file liens on the Pentz Property if
Plaintiffs did not pay personally.
23. Defendants further provided extremely substandard remediation work, for example
10 burying damaged concrete footings and other debris that Defendants represented to Plaintiffs and
11 Plaintiffs’ insurance carrier would be properly removed.
12 24. Earl Mann has repeatedly threatened Plaintiffs. In one particularly galling instance on
13 November 13, 2019, Mr. Mann stated in hostile written correspondence that “[a]ny aggression or
14 action” taken by Plaintiffs to protect themselves, their property, or dispute Defendants’ unlawful and
15 unsavory behavior “. . will start the process of your own demise. ” Mr. Mann further went on to
16 falsely accuse Plaintiffs of attempting to blackmail Mr. Mann and his company. Mr. Mann accused
8 17 Plaintiffs of “[e]xtortion, blackmail, insurance fraud, diversion of funds, entrapment, and other are
18 felony crimes. If you’re not familiar with what extortion is, suggest you look it up. I also strongly
19 suggest that you regroup . . . and consider the potential outcome of this if you continue to try to extort
20 money from our company and otherwise attempt to blackmail us.”
21 25. On or about November 17, 2019, Nick Rodgers, as an agent for Defendants and with
22 knowledge of their operations, stated to Plaintiffs that he was the only HAZWOPER-trained
23 (hazardous waste operations and emergency response) employee on the job site, and that all other of
24 Defendants’ employees working at the Pentz Property did not have the proper training or certification,
25 contrary to what Defendants had represented to both Plaintiffs and the County months earlier.
26 26. On or about January 8, 2020, Nick Rodgers, as agent for Defendants, stated to Plaintiffs
27 that the total cost of all the remediation work Defendants were supposed to perform should have totaled
28 between $35,000-$45,000, only a fraction of what Plaintiffs ultimately ended up paying to Defendants.
COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC.
Even having spent substantially more than the project should have called for, Defendants did not
perform all the work required, nor did they perform it in a competent, reasonably workmanlike manner.
COUNT 1
(Conversion)
27. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint
as though fully set forth herein.
28. As set forth herein, supra, Plaintiffs owned and possessed a John Deere backhoe that
was situated on the Pentz Property. That backhoe was to remain on the Pentz Property and be used in
connection with the debris removal and cleanup work.
10 29. Through April 2018 through November 2019, Defendants intentionally and
11 substantially interfered with Plaintiffs’ property by damaging the backhoe by, inter alia, removing
12 batteries and power sources, breaking windows, and exposing it to an extraordinary amount of wear
13 and tear far in excess of what could reasonably be expected, leaving it in an inoperable state.
14 30. Defendants further intentionally and substantially interfered with Plaintiffs’ ownership
15 and use of the backhoe by taking possession of it, removing it from the Pentz Property without
16 Plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent, depriving Plaintiffs of access to it, and taking it to an unknown
8 17 location. Defendants have, as of the time of the filing of this Complaint, refused to return it.
18 31. On November 14, 2019, Earl Mann admitted in writing that the backhoe was in the
19 possession of his agent, Nick Rodgers. Even though he admitted his agent/employee had stolen the
20 backhoe, Mann stated “I am not responsible for your equipment left out on your property.”
21 32. At no point did Plaintiffs consent to the removal or damaging of the backhoe. Plaintiffs
22 had allowed their backhoe to be used in connection with the debris removal and remediation work, for
23 which Plaintiffs would be reimbursed. Defendants never reimbursed Plaintiffs for the use of the
24 backhoe or for stealing it.
25 33. Plaintiffs have been harmed as a result of Defendants’ conduct. In particular, Plaintiffs
26 have been harmed in that they were never compensated for the use of their backhoe, their backhoe
27 incurred tremendous physical damage that Plaintiffs will need to repair, and have been deprived of the
28 use and value of the backhoe since Defendants have purloined it and removed it.
COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC.
34. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in Plaintiffs’ harm, as Defendants are the
ones who took the direct action to damage Plaintiffs’ property, deny Plaintiffs their right to
reimbursement, and were the ones to remove the backhoe from the Property and take possession of it.
COUNT 2
(Breach of Oral Contract — Pentz Property)
35. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint
as though fully set forth herein.
36. Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into an oral agreement on or about May 31, 2019 for
Defendant to provide the service of the removal of debris, trash, hazardous material, and to perform
10 grading services at the Pentz Property. Plaintiffs understood the contract price to be $102,000 subject
11 to potential overage, pursuant to oral statements made by Nick Rodgers as agent for Defendants and
12 Earl Mann on or about May 31, 2019.
13 37. Plaintiff's sole requirement under the oral contract was to make payments to
14 Defendants for their debris removal and related services. Plaintiffs subsequently made a series of
15 payments to Defendants between May 31, 2019 and October 8, 2019, totally over $160,000, fulfilling
16 all their requirements under the contract.
8 17 38. Defendants breached the oral contract with Plaintiffs by, inter alia, (1) failing to
18 completely remove all the relevant debris, trash, and hazardous material from the Property; and (2)
19 bringing outside debris and trash and dumping it on the Pentz Property.
20 39. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have been harmed.
21 40. Defendants’ breach of the oral contract was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’
22 harm, as Defendants were the ones who refused to take the acts necessary to remove the debris, trash,
23 and hazardous material from the property, and were the ones to affirmatively bring new debris onto
24 the Pentz Property.
25 COUNT 3
26 (Violation of Business & Professions Code § 7031)
27 41. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint
28 as though fully set forth herein.
COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC.
42. As set forth in paragraphs | through 26 and 35 through 40, supra, Plaintiffs and
Defendants had a binding, oral contract for the removal of debris, trash, and hazardous material caused
by the Camp Fire from the Property, in addition to providing grading services.
43. A valid contractor’s license of the appropriate type was required to perform those
services, inter alia, valid Class C-21 licenses for building moving/demolition, C-12 licenses covering
earthwork and hauling, or “A” general contracting licenses.
44. On information and belief, at no point during the term of the oral contract did
Defendants have the required licensing and certifications to perform the work they were contracted to
perform, including those licenses necessary to perform work on the foundation footings (C-21 license
10 required), dirt earthwork (C-12 license required), or removal of debris when structural alterations are
11 not part of the scope of work (‘A’ general contracting license required).
12 45. Plaintiffs’ sole requirement under the oral contract for the Pentz Property was to make
13 payments to Defendants for their debris removal and related services. Plaintiffs subsequently made a
14 series of payments to Defendants between May 31, 2019 and October 8, 2019, totaling over $160,000,
15 fulfilling all their requirements under the contract.
16 46. Plaintiffs’ sole requirement under the oral contract for the Rowena Property was to
8 17 make payments to Defendants for the purchase, shipping, and installation of flooring and insulation
18 materials. Plaintiffs subsequently made a series of payments in June and July 2019 totaling over
19 $30,000, fulfilling all their requirements under the contract.
20 COUNT 4
21 (Civil Financial Elder Abuse — Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.30)
22 47. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint
23 as though fully set forth herein.
24 48. Defendants, including but not limited to Defendants’ employees and agents Nick
25 Rodgers, Tyler Haining, Desiree Rodgers, Lois Frazier, and co-owner Kelly Mann, appropriated and
26 obtained, or assisted in appropriating and obtaining, property belonging to Plaintiffs, principal among
27 it Plaintiffs’ John Deere backhoe, which remains missing from the Property.
28 //1
COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC.
49. Plaintiff Marshall was over 65 years of age at the time of Defendants’ conduct and
misappropriation of the backhoe.
50. On information and belief, Defendants, including but not limited to Defendants’
employees and agents Nick Rodgers, Tyler Haining, Desiree Rodgers, Lois Frazier, and Kelly Mann,
appropriated and obtained, or assisted in appropriating and obtaining, Plaintiffs’ property intending to
make wrongful use of it far beyond the scope of using for Plaintiffs’ own benefit, and further
appropriated and obtained Plaintiffs’ property with the intent to defraud them of the possession, use,
and enjoyment of that property.
51. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have been harmed. Plaintiffs no
10 longer have the use and enjoyment of their John Deere backhoe, and even before then Defendants had
11 rendered the machine unusable with their conduct.
12 52. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing their harm, as Defendants’
13 agents, as alleged herein, directly caused both the damage to and appropriation of the John Deere
14 backhoe.
15 COUNT 5
16 (Negligence)
8 17 53. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint
18 as though fully set forth herein.
19 54. In undertaking to act on Plaintiffs’ behalf in, inter alia, removing debris, cleaning, and
20 performing grading work on the Property, and forming a relationship with Plaintiffs for that purpose,
21 Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of care to perform the debris removal, cleaning, and grading work
22 using ordinary care. Defendants had an obligation to perform these tasks in a reasonably workmanlike
23 manner.
24 55. Defendants breached this duty by, at a minimum, failing to remove all the debris from
25 the Camp Fire, failing to clean the Property, failing to provide grading services ofa reasonable quality,
26 damaging the John Deere backhoe, and dumping trash and additional detritus onto Plaintiffs’ Property.
27 56. Plaintiffs suffered damage as a direct result of Defendants’ actions. Plaintiffs paid over
28 $160,000 to Defendants, yet still had debris, trash, and toxic material on the Property, needed
COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC.
additional, quality grading work performed, and had additional trash and debris on the Property that
was not present when Defendants became involved. Plaintiffs were forced to incur additional costs to
attempt to salvage the situation and get the repair work performed in a reasonably workmanlike
manner.
57. Further, Plaintiffs have been damaged by being deprived of the use and enjoyment of
their Property, which remains covered in debris and trash and is completely uninhabitable.
COUNT 6
(Negligent Hiring)
58. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint
10 as though fully set forth herein.
11 59. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants represented that Nick Rodgers was
12 a hired employee of Defendants. Defendants provided a quote to Plaintiffs, on California Renovation
13 letterhead, that named Rodgers as the Sales Representative on the project. Rodgers communicated
14 with Plaintiffs on Defendants’ behalf as early as April of 2019, when discussing the scope of cleanup
15 work Defendants were to perform on the Property. Defendant Earl Mann corresponded directly with
16 Rodgers on the topic of Defendants’ cleanup work on the Property, including asking Rodgers to call
8 17 Mann to discuss filing liens against the Property. Rodgers accepted checks from Plaintiffs made under
18 the agreements discussed supra and emailed with Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ insurance carrier regarding
19 the project from a Roseville Carpet One email address. Additionally, Defendants indicated to
20 Plaintiffs’ insurance carrier that Rodgers was to be contacted directly in the event of questions
21 regarding the cleanup work performed at the Property.
22 60. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Rodgers was unfit to perform the work for
23 which he was hired and required to perform on the Property on Defendants’ behalf. On information
24 and belief, Rodgers has no contractor’s license in California. Rodgers was responsible for
25 coordinating the cleanup work, repairs, grading services, and other work Defendants were to perform
26 on the Property, yet his work resulted in damage to the John Deere backhoe, extensive amounts of
27 trash and debris not being cleaned up, additional, new trash and debris being added to the Property,
28 and other damage.
COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC.
61. Defendants knew or should have known that Rodgers was unfit to perform the tasks for
which he was hired and required to do for the Property. On information and belief, in addition to
Rodgers having no contractor’s license and limited, if any, construction or debris removal experience
in California or with hazardous/disaster areas, Rodgers had a readily available criminal history of
moral turpitude. Rodgers was implicated, arrested, and charged in a gang-related methamphetamine
distribution conspiracy case in 2018.
62. As Earl Mann stated in a letter to Plaintiffs dated November 13, 2019, Rodgers’
criminal history was readily available, and Rodgers was “implicated in a Federal case with the FBI
that was amassed on a Google search. It is easy to find on Google, the article states that Nick is
10 implicated, and we have direct knowledge he has be involved in court proceedings. . . This is one of
11 the many violations that he faces, and all of this will be investigated on the Federal and State level if
12 necessary.” [sic]
13 63. Despite this, Defendants employed Rodgers and used him as a primary, unsupervised
14 point of contact and go-between for work performed on the Property. As set forth previously, Mann
15 directly corresponded with Rodgers to discuss and give instructions regarding work to be performed
16 at the Property, including the supposed cleanup work and threatened liens. Rodgers had an employee
8 17 email address and was given free rein to oversee and coordinate the work, and accepted payment on
18 Defendants’ behalf.
19 64. Plaintiffs suffered damage as a direct result of Defendants’ actions. Despite the
20 supposed cleanup actions taken by Defendants and Rodgers, Plaintiffs still had debris, trash, and toxic
21 material on the Property, needed additional, quality grading work performed, and had additional trash
22 and debris on the Property that was not present when Defendants became involved. Plaintiffs were
23 forced to incur additional expenses in repair and mitigation with respect to the original cleanup that
24 needed to be done, and further incurred additional costs to clean up the added mess Defendants and
25 Rodgers created.
26 65. Defendants’ negligence in hiring and retaining Rodgers to oversee the cleanup process
27 was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm, as without Defendants hiring and keeping Rodgers
28 on to perform this work, Defendants would have been required to employ and utilize a competent
COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC.
professional to perform quality restoration work at the Property.
COUNT 7
(Fraud)
66. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint
as though fully set forth herein.
67. Defendants made multiple misrepresentations and false statements to Plaintiffs. On
May 31, 2019, Rodgers on behalf of California Renovations owners, represented that Defendants had
all appropriate licenses to perform the work for which they were engaged, including a C-21 license to
remove asbestos, and the necessary licensing to perform remedial work during a declared State of
10 Emergency.
11 68. Defendants also misrepresented to Plaintiffs their communications with Butte County
12 and the authority they subsequently received from the County to perform remediation work. On or
13 about April 26, 2019 Defendants’ staff represented to Butte County Hazardous Materials Management
14 Specialist Adrienne Walker that they had been retained to perform rebuilding work at the Property,
15 when they were in fact only retained to perform cleanup, debris removal, and related work to get the
16 property approved for renewed utilities usage. Rodgers represented to Plaintiffs on or about May 15,
8 17 2019 that they had been approved by Butte County to perform cleanup, debris removal, and
18 remediation work such that they were fit to perform that type of work on Plaintiffs’ property.
19 69. On October 29, 2019 Kelly Mann, by email, solicited a favorable recommendation and
20 confirmation that the project was completed to our satisfaction and reflects the terms for the
21 nonexistent “agreement”. Kelly Mann stated, “Nick has done a good job completing this in our
22 knowledge.” Earl Mann stated in his email dated November 14, 2019 that “I was informed by a
23 manager via text on Oct 14, 19 that Nick Rodgers is implicated in a Federal case with the FBI that was
24 amassed on a Google search.” Mann was in possession of the information regarding Rodgers’ past
25 legal problems, approximately two weeks before he complimented employee Rodgers on his job
26 performance.
27 70. These representations, and each of them, were false when they were made to Plaintiffs
28 on the dates noted.
COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC.
71. Defendants knew these representations were false. In an email dated on or about
November 10, 2019, Earl Mann stated to Defendants’ employee Nick Rodgers “[w]e are allowed to
due(sic) multiple services with a Generals license however we are supposed to use a licensed
contractor to perform these services. If we did a handful of jobs a year we would probably be ok but
if jobs begin to come in and we were to get busy and a complaint was filed (CSLB) and it went to an
investigation we would probably have to shut down the operation,” indicating he was aware that
Defendants were and had been operating without the proper licensing.
72. Defendants intended Plaintiffs rely on these representations to secure a more than
$100,000 cleanup and debris removal job that they would otherwise have lost out on due to not having
10 the required licensing and permits. In effect, Defendants deliberately misled Plaintiffs so that
11 Defendants could get the windfall ofa contract they otherwise would never have been able to obtain
12 without the noted misrepresentations to Plaintiffs.
13 73. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations that they were reputable,
14 licensed contractors with all the necessary approvals, licenses, and permits to perform the cleanup,
15 debris removal, and adjacent work required to get utilities running again. Especially in the aftermath
16 of the Camp Fire, Plaintiffs were in an extremely vulnerable position due to the devastation caused to
8 17 their property. The State of California instituted and publicly announced harsh penalties for anyone
18 attempting to profiteer on the back of the Camp Fire, and given that Defendants do have a valid —
19 albeit insufficient for the job for which they were retained — contractor’s license, Plaintiffs reasonably
20 relied on Defendants’ representations and supposed professionalism.
21 74. Plaintiffs have been seriously harmed as a direct result of Defendants’ conduct.
22 Without Defendants’ affirmative misrepresentations regarding their licensing status and ability to
23 perform the required work, Plaintiffs would have engaged qualified professionals from the outset, who
24 would have provided work at the industry standard or greater. Without Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs
25 would not have had to expend nearly double the estimated amount on repairs, only to end up with a
26 broken backhoe and property covered in debris. Plaintiffs have further been forced to spend extra
27 money on top of what was paid to Defendants just to begin the process of having the property made
28 usable again.
COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC.
COUNT 8
(Violation of Unfair Business Practices Act, Business & Professions Code § 17200)
75. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint
as though fully set forth herein.
76. During all times relevant to this action, Defendants engaged in and/or are still engaged
in actions of unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent behavior as defined in Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.
77. Plaintiffs are consumers and members of the public who were situated to utilize
Defendants’ services in the aftermath of the Camp Fire that devastated Northern California.
78. Defendants have engaged in a series of unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business acts
10 and practices. As set forth in more detail supra, Plaintiffs’ property was extensively damaged by the
11 Camp Fire, leaving huge amounts of toxic and damaging debris, detritus, and trash that needed
12 removing. Further, grading work and related restoration services to the property itself were needed.
13 Taking advantage of Plaintiffs’ situation, Defendants proceeded to estimate the repair and restoration
14 cost at around $108,000 yet ended up collecting over $160,000 for this work. After collecting this
15 exorbitant sum, Defendants proceeded to do substandard repair/restoration work, create additional
16 damage by piling additional trash and debris on the property, damaged Plaintiffs’ John Deere backhoe,
8 17 and simply did not perform the restoration work they were required to under the agreement with
18 Plaintiffs.
19 79. Defendants further engaged in fraudulent business practices, as discussed in more detail
20 in Count 7, supra.
21 80. Defendants also engaged in extensively unlawful conduct, on information and belief
22 violating multiple statutes in brazen fashion. Despite the Business and Professions Code statutes
23 imposing many requirements on Defendants’ business and operation, Defendants flagrantly violated
24 them to Plaintiffs’ harm in both. Defendants, inter alia, unlawfully advertised that they were licensed
25 to perform hazardous materials and asbestos removal despite not being licensed for it under Business
26 and Professions Code section 7027.1. Defendants further engaged in a series of unlawful, unlicensed
27 work which they were not permitted to do under any of the three contracting licenses they possessed
28 — general contracting (B), Flooring (C15), and Landscaping (C27). Defendants instead engaged in
COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC.
unlicensed (1) debris removal (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7028.1, 7058.5, 7058.6), (2) State of Emergency
disaster relief (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7028.16), (3) departed from acceptable trade standards in the
performance of their work (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7109), (4) on information and belief, failed to make
and keep records showing all contracts, documents, records, receipts, and disbursements made on the
job for Plaintiffs (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7111(a)), (5) failed to complete the project for the price
estimated (Bus. & Prof. Code 7113), (6) knowingly entered into agreements with unqualified,
unlicensed agents like Nick Rodgers and Allure Construction to perform work they were not licensed
to do (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7118.5, 7121.21.), and (7) engaged in unlawful advertising (Bus. & Prof.
Code §§ 7027.1, 7030.5).
10 81. In connection with both the Pentz Property and the Rowena Property, Defendants failed
11 to satisfy Business & Professions Code section 7159.5, in that Defendants (1) failed to provide a
12 contract in writing that set forth the agreed-upon, entire contract amount; (2) failed to provide a
13 schedule of payments; (3) charged and was paid exceeding $1,000 or 10% of the total contract value;
14 and (4) demanded and accepting the value of the work performed. (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §
15 7159.5(a)(1), (3)-).)
16 82. Defendants further engaged in unlawful and unfair practices by failing to provide or
8 17 disclose necessary information to Plaintiffs and to the public as required by statute. For instance,
18 Defendants’ trade vehicles did not display their contractor’s license number (Bus. & Prof. Code §
19 7029.6) and did not provide to Plaintiffs written materials with the required disclosures (Bus. & Prof.
20 Code § 7030, 7030.5). Further, on information and belief, Defendants made affirmatively false
21 statements to Butte County to get approval for the project; Defendants falsely claimed that they were
22 licensed to handle hazardous materials (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7031.5), and falsely claimed that they
23 were retained by Plaintiffs to rebuild Plaintiffs’ residence (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7090).
24 83. Defendants have also failed to uphold their statutory duties to Plaintiffs. Defendants
25 have unlawfully withheld payments to Allure Construction, a subcontractor Defendants engaged,
26 resulting in Allure threatening to file a lien on Plaintiffs’ property (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7108.5.) On
27 information and belief, Defendants have diverted funds received to be used on Plaintiffs’ property yet
28 have refused to account for them in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 7108.
COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC.
84. Most damningly, Defendants engaged in grossly unfair business practices when
Defendants overtly threatened and harassed Plaintiffs in connection with Plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction
with Defendants’ transparently inadequate work and fraudulent behavior. In Defendants’ November
13, 2019 letter, Defendants repeatedly reference Plaintiffs’ supposedly “highly illegal” conduct in
making payments to Defendants’ agent Nick Rodgers, implicitly threaten to report Plaintiffs to local
and federal authorities for interacting with Nick Ro
Preview
Port J. Parker (SBN 179256) Superior Court of California R. Shane Quigley (SBN 300405) County of Butte PARKER LAW GROUP ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 2/5/2021 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1230 Sacramento, CA 95814 Flener, rk Telephone: (916) 996-0400 By Deputy ctronicafy FILED Attorneys for James K. Marshall & Daniel L. Johnson SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF BUTTE 10 Case No.:21CV00277 11 JAMES K. MARSHALL & DANIEL L. JOHNSON, COMPLAINT FOR: 12 Plaintiffs, Conversion 13 Breach of Oral Contract Violation of Business & Professions 14 V, Code § 7031 Civil Financial Elder Abuse 15 ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC, a California Negligence Corporation, dba CALIFORNIA Negligent Hiring 16 RENOVATIONS; ROSEVILLE CARPET Fraud Violation of Unfair Business Practices ONE, a California General Partnership; and 8 17 EARL WILLIAM MANN, an individual, Act, Business & Professions Code 17200 18 Defendants 19 20 James K. Marshall and Daniel L. Johnson (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), Debtors in Possession in 21 an underlying bankruptcy proceeding in the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division, Case No. 18-25889B-11, now allege against Roseville Flooring, Inc. 22 23 and Earl William Mann (collectively, “Defendants”) as follows: 24 THE PARTIES 25 1 Debtor/Plaintiff James K. Marshall (“Marshall”) is an individual residing in 26 Sacramento, California. He is a Debtor in Possession in a concurrent above-described Chapter 11 case. 27 28 //1 COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC. 2 Debtor/Plaintiff Daniel L. Johnson (“Johnson”) is an individual residing in the Eastern District of California. He is a Debtor in Possession in the above-described Chapter 11 case. 3 Defendant Roseville Flooring Inc. (“Roseville Flooring”) is a California corporation conducting business in, inter alia, Placer and Butte County. Roseville Flooring also does business as “California Renovations.” Plaintiffs are informed and believe that in addition to using the name California Renovations, Roseville Flooring also use the fictious names, RCO Home Improvement, RCO Flooring Outlet, RCO Tile & Stone, and Carpet One Floor and Home. Indeed, the website for California Renovations states that “IF YOU’RE LOOKING FOR RCO HOME IMPROVEMENT, CARPET ONE, RCO TILE & STONE, OR RCO FLOORING OUTLET, THAT’S STILL US.” 10 Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that to the extent that any of those names are registered as 11 separate legal entities, they are all the alter ego of Roseville Flooring and/or Earl Mann. Roseville 12 Flooring, Inc.’s contractor’s license, number 1038173, is registered at 1109 Smith Lane, Roseville, 13 CA 95661, with a contact telephone number of (916) 782-1188. Earl Mann is listed with the 14 Contractors State License Board as the qualifying individual for Roseville Flooring as an owner of 15 greater than ten percent (10%) of the voting stock of the company. 16 4 On information and belief, Roseville Carpet One (“RCO”) is a general partnership 8 17 conducting business in, inter alia, Placer and Butte County. On information and belief, Roseville 18 Carpet One is an interrelated entity with Roseville Flooring, Inc., as the California Renovations 19 website lists Roseville Carpet One as one of its locations. Further, Roseville Carpet One’s contractor’s 20 license, number 752412, is also registered at 1109 Smith Lane, Roseville, CA 95661, with a contact 21 telephone number of (916) 782-1188. Further, the Contractors State License Board lists this license 22 as being associated with Earl William Mann and his brother, Kelly Eugene Mann, as “Qualifying 23 partner” and “General Partner,” respectively. Taken together, the overlapping contractors licenses, 24 registrations, business locations & contact information, and advertising as the same entities renders 25 Roseville Flooring, RCO, and Mr. Mann as inseparably interrelated entities and individuals such that 26 there is no practical or legal distinction between them. 27 5 Defendant Earl William Mann (“Mann,” collectively with Roseville Flooring, Inc. and 28 Roseville Carpet One, “Defendants”), on information and belief, is an individual residing in Placer COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC. County. 6. Venue is proper in the Superior Court of California, County of Butte, under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 395, as the alleged injuries giving rise to this action occurred in the County of Butte. Further, Plaintiffs’ Chapter 11 Plan specifically contemplates this action be filed in Butte County, as stated by the underlying United States Bankruptcy Court order. A true and correct copy of this order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 7 Venue is further proper under this statute and established California law because the contracts and obligations at issue and described herein were made or entered into in the County of Butte. 10 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 11 8 Plaintiffs are the owners of a parcel of real property located at 4646 Pentz Road, 12 Paradise, California 95969 (the Pentz “Property”). The Pentz Property was heavily damaged in or 13 around November 2018, during the Camp Fire that devastated Paradise, California and other areas, 14 leaving a considerable amount of debris, damage, and cleanup work required. Much of the remediation 15 and cleanup work involved hazardous materials resulting from the Camp Fire, materials not normally 16 seen on a residential property site and subsequently requiring a great deal more expertise and licensing 8 17 to handle. 18 9 On November 12, 2018, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) 19 declared the Camp Fire a Major Disaster. The Butte County Board of Supervisors subsequently issued 20 Ordinance No. 4152, which explicitly found that the Camp Fire created an extremely high potential 21 for widespread toxic exposures and threats to public health in the form of hazardous materials 22 produced by the wildfire. 23 10. Plaintiffs are also the owners of a piece of real property located at 1400 Rowena Way, 24 Sacramento CA 95864 (the "Rowena Property"). As discussed in more detail infra, Defendants 25 provided services to Plaintiffs in connection with the Rowena Property. 26 11. In or around May 31, 2019, Plaintiffs engaged Defendants to perform cleanup, 27 remediation, and repair work at the Pentz Property. Specifically, Defendants were initially engaged 28 to, inter alia, (1) remove from the property hazardous and non-hazardous debris and trash resulting COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC. from the Camp Fire, (2) make all necessary preparations to get approval from Butte County for water, power, and other utilities, and (3) remove/repair foundation footings. Defendants represented themselves as Contractor Earl Mann, performing work as a general partnership under the name Roseville Carpet One, License No. 752412, and Roseville Flooring, Inc. doing business as California Renovation, License No. 1038173. 12. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Roseville Flooring, Inc., License No. 1038173, was licensed to perform only Class B — General Building, Class C15 — Flooring and Floor Covering, C27 — Landscaping, and C54 — Tile (ceramic and mosaic) work. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Roseville Carpet One, License No. 752412, was licensed to perform only Class B — 10 General Building, Class C15 — Flooring and Floor Covering, and Class C27 — Landscaping services. 11 On information and belief, these entities did not possess, inter alia, Class C-21 licenses for building 12 moving/demolition, C-12 licenses covering earthwork and hauling, or “A” general contracting 13 licenses. 14 13. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the individuals Nick Rodgers, Tyler Haining, 15 Desiree Rodgers, Lois Frazier, and Kelly Mann were employees and agents of Defendants. Nick 16 Rodgers represented in both written communications and quotes provided on Defendants’ behalf that 8 17 he was an employee, sales representative, and agent of Defendants. 18 14. On information and belief, Nick Rodgers fully disclosed to Defendants at the time he 19 was hired that he had a previous criminal history and had been investigated by the FBI, ultimately 20 resulting in legal proceedings in Tennessee. At all times relevant to this Complaint Defendants were 21 aware that Nick Rodgers had a troubled legal history. 22 15. On information and belief, Defendants made numerous false statements to Butte 23 County authorities for the purpose of obtaining permits and other official approvals necessary to take 24 advantage of the work opportunities presented by the devastation caused by the Camp Fire. Among 25 these false statements were the misrepresentation that Defendants possessed the necessary licensing — 26 including C-27 licenses to perform building moving/demolition work, and C-12 licenses for earthwork 27 and hauling, and “A” general contracting licenses — and the misrepresentation that Defendants were 28 engaged to rebuild Plaintiffs’ residence on the Pentz Property. COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC. 16. At the time Defendants were being engaged by Plaintiffs to perform this work, Defendants affirmatively misrepresented to Plaintiffs that Defendants held all the necessary and required California licenses to perform building moving/demolition work, earthwork/hauling work, and general contracting work. These representations were false at the time they were made. In April 2019, in a report to the Butte County Environmental Health Department (date stamped April 15, 2019), Defendants represented that they were engaged for the purpose of and duly licensed to perform moving/demolition work, earthwork/grading work in fire disaster areas, and generally perform disaster remediation services at the Pentz Property. When Defendants made these misrepresentations to Plaintiffs and to Butte County, Defendants were not properly licensed violated advertising 10 requirements for contractors, including but not limited to violations of Business and Professions Code 11 sections 7027.1, 7028.16, 7030.5, and 16 C.F.R. § 861, et seq. Further, Defendants knew at the time 12 they made the misrepresentations that they were not properly licensed. In an email dated on or about 13 October, 2019 Earl Mann explicitly observed that Defendants were acting outside the scope of their 14 licensing, stating “[w]e are allowed to due(sic) multiple services with a Generals license however we 15 are supposed to use a licensed contractor to perform these services. If we did a handful of jobs a year 16 we would probably be ok but if jobs begin to come in and we were to get busy and a complaint was 8 17 filed (CSLB) and it went to an investigation we would probably have to shut down the operation.” 18 17. On or around March 19, 2019, Plaintiffs purchased a John Deere backhoe for use in the 19 extensive repair work needed on the Pentz Property. Plaintiffs obtained a verbal agreement from 20 Defendants, through their agent and employee Nick Rodgers, that Plaintiffs would be compensated by 21 Defendants for Defendants’ use of the backhoe in the repair and restoration work. Not only were 22 Plaintiffs never compensated for Defendants’ use of the backhoe, but Defendants actually damaged 23 the backhoe to the point of inoperability. The damages included, but were not limited to, broken 24 windows, missing batteries, and extreme wear and tear far beyond what would reasonably be expected 25 for the amount or work required to be done on Plaintiffs’ property. Further, in or around October 2019 26 Defendants removed the backhoe from the Pentz Property without Plaintiffs’ permission, and it 27 remains missing as of the date of this Complaint. 28 //1 COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC. 18. On May 7, 2019, ina letter to Ms. Adrienne Walker, Butte County Hazardous Materials Management Department, Defendants falsely claimed that they had been retained to perform “new build” work at the Pentz Property, when in fact they had not been engaged for any construction or new build work whatsoever. Defendants further falsely claimed in this communication that Nick Rodgers was contractor for the project to remove debris from the Pentz Property. Defendants further falsely claimed that all employees performing debris removal onsite would have 40-hour HAZWOPER training before performing any work, which was also false. 19. On June 27, 2019, Defendants, through their employees and agents Nick and Desiree Rodgers, provided to Plaintiffs a quote of $5,554.35 for flooring and insulation to be installed at the 10 Rowena Property. Nick Rodgers and Desiree were listed as “Sales Representatives” on the quote, 11 which was provided on California Renovations letterhead. No contract was ever provided to Plaintiffs 12 for this work, nor was a schedule of payments ever provided. Both the deposit and subsequent 13 payment checks were made out to California Renovations and were accepted by Desiree Rodgers on 14 California Renovations’ behalf. No complaint or issue regarding this arrangement was raised by 15 Defendants. In total, Plaintiffs paid approximately thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00) to Defendants 16 for work at the Rowena Property. 8 17 20. On or about June 27, 2019, CSAA Insurance Group Claims Specialist Danielle Perez 18 highlighted a suspicious $64,000 charge for grading and soil at the Pentz Property, asking for a 19 separate cost related to this work as it was “not considered debris removal but actually part of the 20 rebuild cost,” which Defendants were not retained to perform. Defendants falsely claimed to Ms. Perez 21 that the costs were for trucking of 6” worth of material to a disposal site and related costs. 22 21. As of November 8, 2019, Plaintiffs had paid to Defendants and their employees over 23 one hundred sixty thousand dollars ($160,000.00) for cleanup work to be performed at the Pentz 24 Property. Despite having paid an exorbitant sum of money to Defendants, and Defendants ostensibly 25 working at the Pentz Property for approximately a year on necessary cleanup and repairs, extensive 26 further cleanup and repairs were still necessary. On information and belief, a substantial amount of 27 the debris still on the Pentz Property was in fact moved on to the Pentz Property by direction of Kelly 28 Mann, the brother of Contractor Earl Mann and Roseville Flooring co-owner. Defendants repeatedly COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC. dumped debris and trash on the Pentz Property throughout the time they were supposed to be performing debris removal and remediation work for the damage caused by the Camp Fire. 22. On information and belief, Defendants submitted multiple false invoices and cost justifications to Plaintiffs’ insurance carrier. In particular, Defendants submitted false invoices and cost justifications for the payment of over $64,000 in grading services outside the scope of their retention and that were never actually provided. When the Plaintiff's refused to pay out for the unfinished and unsatisfactory work, Defendants threatened to file liens on the Pentz Property if Plaintiffs did not pay personally. 23. Defendants further provided extremely substandard remediation work, for example 10 burying damaged concrete footings and other debris that Defendants represented to Plaintiffs and 11 Plaintiffs’ insurance carrier would be properly removed. 12 24. Earl Mann has repeatedly threatened Plaintiffs. In one particularly galling instance on 13 November 13, 2019, Mr. Mann stated in hostile written correspondence that “[a]ny aggression or 14 action” taken by Plaintiffs to protect themselves, their property, or dispute Defendants’ unlawful and 15 unsavory behavior “. . will start the process of your own demise. ” Mr. Mann further went on to 16 falsely accuse Plaintiffs of attempting to blackmail Mr. Mann and his company. Mr. Mann accused 8 17 Plaintiffs of “[e]xtortion, blackmail, insurance fraud, diversion of funds, entrapment, and other are 18 felony crimes. If you’re not familiar with what extortion is, suggest you look it up. I also strongly 19 suggest that you regroup . . . and consider the potential outcome of this if you continue to try to extort 20 money from our company and otherwise attempt to blackmail us.” 21 25. On or about November 17, 2019, Nick Rodgers, as an agent for Defendants and with 22 knowledge of their operations, stated to Plaintiffs that he was the only HAZWOPER-trained 23 (hazardous waste operations and emergency response) employee on the job site, and that all other of 24 Defendants’ employees working at the Pentz Property did not have the proper training or certification, 25 contrary to what Defendants had represented to both Plaintiffs and the County months earlier. 26 26. On or about January 8, 2020, Nick Rodgers, as agent for Defendants, stated to Plaintiffs 27 that the total cost of all the remediation work Defendants were supposed to perform should have totaled 28 between $35,000-$45,000, only a fraction of what Plaintiffs ultimately ended up paying to Defendants. COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC. Even having spent substantially more than the project should have called for, Defendants did not perform all the work required, nor did they perform it in a competent, reasonably workmanlike manner. COUNT 1 (Conversion) 27. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 28. As set forth herein, supra, Plaintiffs owned and possessed a John Deere backhoe that was situated on the Pentz Property. That backhoe was to remain on the Pentz Property and be used in connection with the debris removal and cleanup work. 10 29. Through April 2018 through November 2019, Defendants intentionally and 11 substantially interfered with Plaintiffs’ property by damaging the backhoe by, inter alia, removing 12 batteries and power sources, breaking windows, and exposing it to an extraordinary amount of wear 13 and tear far in excess of what could reasonably be expected, leaving it in an inoperable state. 14 30. Defendants further intentionally and substantially interfered with Plaintiffs’ ownership 15 and use of the backhoe by taking possession of it, removing it from the Pentz Property without 16 Plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent, depriving Plaintiffs of access to it, and taking it to an unknown 8 17 location. Defendants have, as of the time of the filing of this Complaint, refused to return it. 18 31. On November 14, 2019, Earl Mann admitted in writing that the backhoe was in the 19 possession of his agent, Nick Rodgers. Even though he admitted his agent/employee had stolen the 20 backhoe, Mann stated “I am not responsible for your equipment left out on your property.” 21 32. At no point did Plaintiffs consent to the removal or damaging of the backhoe. Plaintiffs 22 had allowed their backhoe to be used in connection with the debris removal and remediation work, for 23 which Plaintiffs would be reimbursed. Defendants never reimbursed Plaintiffs for the use of the 24 backhoe or for stealing it. 25 33. Plaintiffs have been harmed as a result of Defendants’ conduct. In particular, Plaintiffs 26 have been harmed in that they were never compensated for the use of their backhoe, their backhoe 27 incurred tremendous physical damage that Plaintiffs will need to repair, and have been deprived of the 28 use and value of the backhoe since Defendants have purloined it and removed it. COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC. 34. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in Plaintiffs’ harm, as Defendants are the ones who took the direct action to damage Plaintiffs’ property, deny Plaintiffs their right to reimbursement, and were the ones to remove the backhoe from the Property and take possession of it. COUNT 2 (Breach of Oral Contract — Pentz Property) 35. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 36. Plaintiffs and Defendants entered into an oral agreement on or about May 31, 2019 for Defendant to provide the service of the removal of debris, trash, hazardous material, and to perform 10 grading services at the Pentz Property. Plaintiffs understood the contract price to be $102,000 subject 11 to potential overage, pursuant to oral statements made by Nick Rodgers as agent for Defendants and 12 Earl Mann on or about May 31, 2019. 13 37. Plaintiff's sole requirement under the oral contract was to make payments to 14 Defendants for their debris removal and related services. Plaintiffs subsequently made a series of 15 payments to Defendants between May 31, 2019 and October 8, 2019, totally over $160,000, fulfilling 16 all their requirements under the contract. 8 17 38. Defendants breached the oral contract with Plaintiffs by, inter alia, (1) failing to 18 completely remove all the relevant debris, trash, and hazardous material from the Property; and (2) 19 bringing outside debris and trash and dumping it on the Pentz Property. 20 39. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have been harmed. 21 40. Defendants’ breach of the oral contract was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ 22 harm, as Defendants were the ones who refused to take the acts necessary to remove the debris, trash, 23 and hazardous material from the property, and were the ones to affirmatively bring new debris onto 24 the Pentz Property. 25 COUNT 3 26 (Violation of Business & Professions Code § 7031) 27 41. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint 28 as though fully set forth herein. COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC. 42. As set forth in paragraphs | through 26 and 35 through 40, supra, Plaintiffs and Defendants had a binding, oral contract for the removal of debris, trash, and hazardous material caused by the Camp Fire from the Property, in addition to providing grading services. 43. A valid contractor’s license of the appropriate type was required to perform those services, inter alia, valid Class C-21 licenses for building moving/demolition, C-12 licenses covering earthwork and hauling, or “A” general contracting licenses. 44. On information and belief, at no point during the term of the oral contract did Defendants have the required licensing and certifications to perform the work they were contracted to perform, including those licenses necessary to perform work on the foundation footings (C-21 license 10 required), dirt earthwork (C-12 license required), or removal of debris when structural alterations are 11 not part of the scope of work (‘A’ general contracting license required). 12 45. Plaintiffs’ sole requirement under the oral contract for the Pentz Property was to make 13 payments to Defendants for their debris removal and related services. Plaintiffs subsequently made a 14 series of payments to Defendants between May 31, 2019 and October 8, 2019, totaling over $160,000, 15 fulfilling all their requirements under the contract. 16 46. Plaintiffs’ sole requirement under the oral contract for the Rowena Property was to 8 17 make payments to Defendants for the purchase, shipping, and installation of flooring and insulation 18 materials. Plaintiffs subsequently made a series of payments in June and July 2019 totaling over 19 $30,000, fulfilling all their requirements under the contract. 20 COUNT 4 21 (Civil Financial Elder Abuse — Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.30) 22 47. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint 23 as though fully set forth herein. 24 48. Defendants, including but not limited to Defendants’ employees and agents Nick 25 Rodgers, Tyler Haining, Desiree Rodgers, Lois Frazier, and co-owner Kelly Mann, appropriated and 26 obtained, or assisted in appropriating and obtaining, property belonging to Plaintiffs, principal among 27 it Plaintiffs’ John Deere backhoe, which remains missing from the Property. 28 //1 COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC. 49. Plaintiff Marshall was over 65 years of age at the time of Defendants’ conduct and misappropriation of the backhoe. 50. On information and belief, Defendants, including but not limited to Defendants’ employees and agents Nick Rodgers, Tyler Haining, Desiree Rodgers, Lois Frazier, and Kelly Mann, appropriated and obtained, or assisted in appropriating and obtaining, Plaintiffs’ property intending to make wrongful use of it far beyond the scope of using for Plaintiffs’ own benefit, and further appropriated and obtained Plaintiffs’ property with the intent to defraud them of the possession, use, and enjoyment of that property. 51. As a direct result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have been harmed. Plaintiffs no 10 longer have the use and enjoyment of their John Deere backhoe, and even before then Defendants had 11 rendered the machine unusable with their conduct. 12 52. Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing their harm, as Defendants’ 13 agents, as alleged herein, directly caused both the damage to and appropriation of the John Deere 14 backhoe. 15 COUNT 5 16 (Negligence) 8 17 53. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint 18 as though fully set forth herein. 19 54. In undertaking to act on Plaintiffs’ behalf in, inter alia, removing debris, cleaning, and 20 performing grading work on the Property, and forming a relationship with Plaintiffs for that purpose, 21 Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty of care to perform the debris removal, cleaning, and grading work 22 using ordinary care. Defendants had an obligation to perform these tasks in a reasonably workmanlike 23 manner. 24 55. Defendants breached this duty by, at a minimum, failing to remove all the debris from 25 the Camp Fire, failing to clean the Property, failing to provide grading services ofa reasonable quality, 26 damaging the John Deere backhoe, and dumping trash and additional detritus onto Plaintiffs’ Property. 27 56. Plaintiffs suffered damage as a direct result of Defendants’ actions. Plaintiffs paid over 28 $160,000 to Defendants, yet still had debris, trash, and toxic material on the Property, needed COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC. additional, quality grading work performed, and had additional trash and debris on the Property that was not present when Defendants became involved. Plaintiffs were forced to incur additional costs to attempt to salvage the situation and get the repair work performed in a reasonably workmanlike manner. 57. Further, Plaintiffs have been damaged by being deprived of the use and enjoyment of their Property, which remains covered in debris and trash and is completely uninhabitable. COUNT 6 (Negligent Hiring) 58. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint 10 as though fully set forth herein. 11 59. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants represented that Nick Rodgers was 12 a hired employee of Defendants. Defendants provided a quote to Plaintiffs, on California Renovation 13 letterhead, that named Rodgers as the Sales Representative on the project. Rodgers communicated 14 with Plaintiffs on Defendants’ behalf as early as April of 2019, when discussing the scope of cleanup 15 work Defendants were to perform on the Property. Defendant Earl Mann corresponded directly with 16 Rodgers on the topic of Defendants’ cleanup work on the Property, including asking Rodgers to call 8 17 Mann to discuss filing liens against the Property. Rodgers accepted checks from Plaintiffs made under 18 the agreements discussed supra and emailed with Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ insurance carrier regarding 19 the project from a Roseville Carpet One email address. Additionally, Defendants indicated to 20 Plaintiffs’ insurance carrier that Rodgers was to be contacted directly in the event of questions 21 regarding the cleanup work performed at the Property. 22 60. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Rodgers was unfit to perform the work for 23 which he was hired and required to perform on the Property on Defendants’ behalf. On information 24 and belief, Rodgers has no contractor’s license in California. Rodgers was responsible for 25 coordinating the cleanup work, repairs, grading services, and other work Defendants were to perform 26 on the Property, yet his work resulted in damage to the John Deere backhoe, extensive amounts of 27 trash and debris not being cleaned up, additional, new trash and debris being added to the Property, 28 and other damage. COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC. 61. Defendants knew or should have known that Rodgers was unfit to perform the tasks for which he was hired and required to do for the Property. On information and belief, in addition to Rodgers having no contractor’s license and limited, if any, construction or debris removal experience in California or with hazardous/disaster areas, Rodgers had a readily available criminal history of moral turpitude. Rodgers was implicated, arrested, and charged in a gang-related methamphetamine distribution conspiracy case in 2018. 62. As Earl Mann stated in a letter to Plaintiffs dated November 13, 2019, Rodgers’ criminal history was readily available, and Rodgers was “implicated in a Federal case with the FBI that was amassed on a Google search. It is easy to find on Google, the article states that Nick is 10 implicated, and we have direct knowledge he has be involved in court proceedings. . . This is one of 11 the many violations that he faces, and all of this will be investigated on the Federal and State level if 12 necessary.” [sic] 13 63. Despite this, Defendants employed Rodgers and used him as a primary, unsupervised 14 point of contact and go-between for work performed on the Property. As set forth previously, Mann 15 directly corresponded with Rodgers to discuss and give instructions regarding work to be performed 16 at the Property, including the supposed cleanup work and threatened liens. Rodgers had an employee 8 17 email address and was given free rein to oversee and coordinate the work, and accepted payment on 18 Defendants’ behalf. 19 64. Plaintiffs suffered damage as a direct result of Defendants’ actions. Despite the 20 supposed cleanup actions taken by Defendants and Rodgers, Plaintiffs still had debris, trash, and toxic 21 material on the Property, needed additional, quality grading work performed, and had additional trash 22 and debris on the Property that was not present when Defendants became involved. Plaintiffs were 23 forced to incur additional expenses in repair and mitigation with respect to the original cleanup that 24 needed to be done, and further incurred additional costs to clean up the added mess Defendants and 25 Rodgers created. 26 65. Defendants’ negligence in hiring and retaining Rodgers to oversee the cleanup process 27 was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm, as without Defendants hiring and keeping Rodgers 28 on to perform this work, Defendants would have been required to employ and utilize a competent COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC. professional to perform quality restoration work at the Property. COUNT 7 (Fraud) 66. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 67. Defendants made multiple misrepresentations and false statements to Plaintiffs. On May 31, 2019, Rodgers on behalf of California Renovations owners, represented that Defendants had all appropriate licenses to perform the work for which they were engaged, including a C-21 license to remove asbestos, and the necessary licensing to perform remedial work during a declared State of 10 Emergency. 11 68. Defendants also misrepresented to Plaintiffs their communications with Butte County 12 and the authority they subsequently received from the County to perform remediation work. On or 13 about April 26, 2019 Defendants’ staff represented to Butte County Hazardous Materials Management 14 Specialist Adrienne Walker that they had been retained to perform rebuilding work at the Property, 15 when they were in fact only retained to perform cleanup, debris removal, and related work to get the 16 property approved for renewed utilities usage. Rodgers represented to Plaintiffs on or about May 15, 8 17 2019 that they had been approved by Butte County to perform cleanup, debris removal, and 18 remediation work such that they were fit to perform that type of work on Plaintiffs’ property. 19 69. On October 29, 2019 Kelly Mann, by email, solicited a favorable recommendation and 20 confirmation that the project was completed to our satisfaction and reflects the terms for the 21 nonexistent “agreement”. Kelly Mann stated, “Nick has done a good job completing this in our 22 knowledge.” Earl Mann stated in his email dated November 14, 2019 that “I was informed by a 23 manager via text on Oct 14, 19 that Nick Rodgers is implicated in a Federal case with the FBI that was 24 amassed on a Google search.” Mann was in possession of the information regarding Rodgers’ past 25 legal problems, approximately two weeks before he complimented employee Rodgers on his job 26 performance. 27 70. These representations, and each of them, were false when they were made to Plaintiffs 28 on the dates noted. COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC. 71. Defendants knew these representations were false. In an email dated on or about November 10, 2019, Earl Mann stated to Defendants’ employee Nick Rodgers “[w]e are allowed to due(sic) multiple services with a Generals license however we are supposed to use a licensed contractor to perform these services. If we did a handful of jobs a year we would probably be ok but if jobs begin to come in and we were to get busy and a complaint was filed (CSLB) and it went to an investigation we would probably have to shut down the operation,” indicating he was aware that Defendants were and had been operating without the proper licensing. 72. Defendants intended Plaintiffs rely on these representations to secure a more than $100,000 cleanup and debris removal job that they would otherwise have lost out on due to not having 10 the required licensing and permits. In effect, Defendants deliberately misled Plaintiffs so that 11 Defendants could get the windfall ofa contract they otherwise would never have been able to obtain 12 without the noted misrepresentations to Plaintiffs. 13 73. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations that they were reputable, 14 licensed contractors with all the necessary approvals, licenses, and permits to perform the cleanup, 15 debris removal, and adjacent work required to get utilities running again. Especially in the aftermath 16 of the Camp Fire, Plaintiffs were in an extremely vulnerable position due to the devastation caused to 8 17 their property. The State of California instituted and publicly announced harsh penalties for anyone 18 attempting to profiteer on the back of the Camp Fire, and given that Defendants do have a valid — 19 albeit insufficient for the job for which they were retained — contractor’s license, Plaintiffs reasonably 20 relied on Defendants’ representations and supposed professionalism. 21 74. Plaintiffs have been seriously harmed as a direct result of Defendants’ conduct. 22 Without Defendants’ affirmative misrepresentations regarding their licensing status and ability to 23 perform the required work, Plaintiffs would have engaged qualified professionals from the outset, who 24 would have provided work at the industry standard or greater. Without Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs 25 would not have had to expend nearly double the estimated amount on repairs, only to end up with a 26 broken backhoe and property covered in debris. Plaintiffs have further been forced to spend extra 27 money on top of what was paid to Defendants just to begin the process of having the property made 28 usable again. COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC. COUNT 8 (Violation of Unfair Business Practices Act, Business & Professions Code § 17200) 75. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 76. During all times relevant to this action, Defendants engaged in and/or are still engaged in actions of unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent behavior as defined in Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. 77. Plaintiffs are consumers and members of the public who were situated to utilize Defendants’ services in the aftermath of the Camp Fire that devastated Northern California. 78. Defendants have engaged in a series of unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business acts 10 and practices. As set forth in more detail supra, Plaintiffs’ property was extensively damaged by the 11 Camp Fire, leaving huge amounts of toxic and damaging debris, detritus, and trash that needed 12 removing. Further, grading work and related restoration services to the property itself were needed. 13 Taking advantage of Plaintiffs’ situation, Defendants proceeded to estimate the repair and restoration 14 cost at around $108,000 yet ended up collecting over $160,000 for this work. After collecting this 15 exorbitant sum, Defendants proceeded to do substandard repair/restoration work, create additional 16 damage by piling additional trash and debris on the property, damaged Plaintiffs’ John Deere backhoe, 8 17 and simply did not perform the restoration work they were required to under the agreement with 18 Plaintiffs. 19 79. Defendants further engaged in fraudulent business practices, as discussed in more detail 20 in Count 7, supra. 21 80. Defendants also engaged in extensively unlawful conduct, on information and belief 22 violating multiple statutes in brazen fashion. Despite the Business and Professions Code statutes 23 imposing many requirements on Defendants’ business and operation, Defendants flagrantly violated 24 them to Plaintiffs’ harm in both. Defendants, inter alia, unlawfully advertised that they were licensed 25 to perform hazardous materials and asbestos removal despite not being licensed for it under Business 26 and Professions Code section 7027.1. Defendants further engaged in a series of unlawful, unlicensed 27 work which they were not permitted to do under any of the three contracting licenses they possessed 28 — general contracting (B), Flooring (C15), and Landscaping (C27). Defendants instead engaged in COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC. unlicensed (1) debris removal (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7028.1, 7058.5, 7058.6), (2) State of Emergency disaster relief (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7028.16), (3) departed from acceptable trade standards in the performance of their work (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7109), (4) on information and belief, failed to make and keep records showing all contracts, documents, records, receipts, and disbursements made on the job for Plaintiffs (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7111(a)), (5) failed to complete the project for the price estimated (Bus. & Prof. Code 7113), (6) knowingly entered into agreements with unqualified, unlicensed agents like Nick Rodgers and Allure Construction to perform work they were not licensed to do (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7118.5, 7121.21.), and (7) engaged in unlawful advertising (Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 7027.1, 7030.5). 10 81. In connection with both the Pentz Property and the Rowena Property, Defendants failed 11 to satisfy Business & Professions Code section 7159.5, in that Defendants (1) failed to provide a 12 contract in writing that set forth the agreed-upon, entire contract amount; (2) failed to provide a 13 schedule of payments; (3) charged and was paid exceeding $1,000 or 10% of the total contract value; 14 and (4) demanded and accepting the value of the work performed. (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 15 7159.5(a)(1), (3)-).) 16 82. Defendants further engaged in unlawful and unfair practices by failing to provide or 8 17 disclose necessary information to Plaintiffs and to the public as required by statute. For instance, 18 Defendants’ trade vehicles did not display their contractor’s license number (Bus. & Prof. Code § 19 7029.6) and did not provide to Plaintiffs written materials with the required disclosures (Bus. & Prof. 20 Code § 7030, 7030.5). Further, on information and belief, Defendants made affirmatively false 21 statements to Butte County to get approval for the project; Defendants falsely claimed that they were 22 licensed to handle hazardous materials (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7031.5), and falsely claimed that they 23 were retained by Plaintiffs to rebuild Plaintiffs’ residence (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7090). 24 83. Defendants have also failed to uphold their statutory duties to Plaintiffs. Defendants 25 have unlawfully withheld payments to Allure Construction, a subcontractor Defendants engaged, 26 resulting in Allure threatening to file a lien on Plaintiffs’ property (Bus. & Prof. Code § 7108.5.) On 27 information and belief, Defendants have diverted funds received to be used on Plaintiffs’ property yet 28 have refused to account for them in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 7108. COMPLAINT AGAINST ROSEVILLE FLOORING, INC. 84. Most damningly, Defendants engaged in grossly unfair business practices when Defendants overtly threatened and harassed Plaintiffs in connection with Plaintiffs’ dissatisfaction with Defendants’ transparently inadequate work and fraudulent behavior. In Defendants’ November 13, 2019 letter, Defendants repeatedly reference Plaintiffs’ supposedly “highly illegal” conduct in making payments to Defendants’ agent Nick Rodgers, implicitly threaten to report Plaintiffs to local and federal authorities for interacting with Nick Ro