Calendar Line 4
According to the allegations of the first amended complaint (“FAC”), on December 30, 2006, plaintiff Sandy Park (“Plaintiff”) contracted with defendants Chung Hee Kim (“Kim”) and Rescue Air Service, Inc. (“RAS”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to install three HVAC units at a residential condominium complex at 1280, 1282, and 1284 Poplar Avenue in Sunnyvale, for $9,000. (See FAC, ¶ 10.) In July 2007, Defendants represented that the installation was complete and Plaintiffs paid the balance of the $9,000 pursuant to the contract. (See FAC, ¶ 15.) From July 2007 to October 2013, Defendants provided continuous repair and maintenance services as there were repetitive and ongoing problems with the HVAC units. (See FAC, ¶ 16.) On October 2013, Defendants withdrew from servicing the HVAC units because the manufacturer of the units, Goodman, agreed to extend their factory warranty for an additional 10 years. (See FAC, ¶ 17.) Plaintiff subsequently attempted to resolve the failure
Hearing Date
January 10, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Calendar Line 4
According to the allegations of the first amended complaint (“FAC”), on December 30, 2006, plaintiff Sandy Park (“Plaintiff”) contracted with defendants Chung Hee Kim (“Kim”) and Rescue Air Service, Inc. (“RAS”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to install three HVAC units at a residential condominium complex at 1280, 1282, and 1284 Poplar Avenue in Sunnyvale, for $9,000. (See FAC, ¶ 10.) In July 2007, Defendants represented that the installation was complete and Plaintiffs paid the balance of the $9,000 pursuant to the contract. (See FAC, ¶ 15.) From July 2007 to October 2013, Defendants provided continuous repair and maintenance services as there were repetitive and ongoing problems with the HVAC units. (See FAC, ¶ 16.) On October 2013, Defendants withdrew from servicing the HVAC units because the manufacturer of the units, Goodman, agreed to extend their factory warranty for an additional 10 years. (See FAC, ¶ 17.) Plaintiff subsequently attempted to resolve the failure