Agenda packet — Baldwin Park City Council, February 7, 2024 (part 9 of 9)

Best Best & Krieger LLP
 Zusser has not demonstrated candor in connection with the instant proceedings. Zusser conditioned its willingness to provide the City with re quested documents material to the City’s inquiry on the City providing the “evidence” which prompted the request, and when such “evidence” was not forthcoming , refused to comply . Such conduct is inconsistent with Zusser having “ demonstrated t he attribute of trustworthiness […] to satisfactorily perform the public works contract”. (Public Contract Code section 1103).

For the absolute avoidance of doubt, the City has requested that Zusser provide the City with, by way of illustration and not by limitation, any “claim[s]”, any “written statement[s] identifying what portion of the claim is disputed and what portion is undisputed ”, and any “ written statement[s] identifying the portion of the claim that remains in dispute and the portion that is undisputed ” as described in section 9204 of the Public Contract Code, or any similar documents, for the J ohn Anson Ford Park Infiltration Cistern Project , and Zusser has refused to comply, first under an assertion of mediation privilege, and later under an assertion of irrelevance in the absence of the City identifying the evidence prompting its inquiry. In the unanticipated event that Zusser now claims that it did not understand that the City was requesting this information, the City’s request is renewed, and Zusser s hall provide such documents to the City immediately. Time is of the essence.

As to Nationwide’s bid, City staff is of the opinion it is responsive and that the responsibility accusations against it do not rise to the level of non-responsibility. This is particularly true because those non-responsibility accusations have not been adjudicated and Nationwide, unlike Zusser, has demonstrated candor with respect to the matters it has been permitted to address . To the extent Nationwide has not addressed other matters raised by Zusser, it is because Zusser unconscionably withheld such information from prior correspondence so that it could deprive Nationwide of notice and an opportunity to respond. For Zusser to claim that its due process rights are being viola ted, and then turn around and egregiously “sandbag” its business competitor with last minute non - responsibility accusations to which it has been deprived an opportunity to respond to, smacks of bad faith.

For the avoidance of doubt, the undersigned would appreciate if counsel going forward limit their communications with the undersigned to writings upon which counsel of record for the other of the three (3) lowest bidders are copied.

Sincerely,

Grant R. Orbach
for BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
GRO:ab

Encl.: Correspondence Since January 11, 2024
1 Grant Orbach
From: Grant Orbach
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 4:21 PM
To: 'Hack, Marion T.'; 'Robert Niesley'; '[email protected]' Cc: 'Rosenberg, Michelle B.'; Amanda Marutzky
Subject: FW: Re:

Counsel,
KASA Construction, Inc.’s ex parte advocacy, albeit apparently confined to positions taken within its papers, could be perceived as an attempt to (a) deprive the lower bidders of their due process rights and (b) instigate a serial meeting in violation of the Brown Act. I am forwarding the email so that if any of the lower bidders take issue with its contents they have an opportunity to be heard in the matter.

Thanks,
-Grant
From: Enrique Vega <[email protected]>
Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2024 at 12:54 PM
To: Daniel "Danny" Damian <[email protected]>, Emmanuel J. Estrada <[email protected]>, Alejandra Avila <[email protected]>, Monica Garcia <[email protected]>, Jean M. Ayala <[email protected]> Cc: Enrique Zaldivar <[email protected]>, Sam Gutierrez <[email protected]>, Romany Basilyous <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re:
[CAUTION: External Email -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Good Afternoon Councilmember Damian,
Thank you very much for your prompt response. We appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns with you, your colleagues, and your staff. I am writing on behalf of KASA Construction, which submitted a bid for the Barnes Park Stormwater Capture Project. As you may be aware, KASA also submitted a Formal Bid Protest against the lowest bidder, Zusser Company, and the second lowest bidder, Nationwide Contracting Services. KASA identified several issues of concern in both proposals submitted by Zusser and Nationwide.

Fitness, Ability, Capacity, Experience
·At the end of the day, this is a park project, and amongst other things, there was a decent amount of Storm Drain work, which the Zusser and Nationwide are more versed in than KASA, and that is why they bid on the project. The amount of Storm Drain work is a small percentage of the overall bid.
· If it was just a park project, neither Zusser nor Nationwide would have even bid on the project because parks are not what they specialize in. If there was a PRE-QUAL, which there typically is and You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 2 requires the General Contractor to have built X amount of Parks in a certain period of time, neither would have likely qualified, but KASA would have. Additionally, KASA listed a very experienced and qualified sub to perform the underground storm drain, which is all the company does.

Failure to comply with DIR Prevailing Wage Requirements (Zusser) · Zusser's history of performing public works projects is also problematic. According to the public record, the California Department of Industrial Relations published Case No. 19-0134- PWH against Zusser on 08/18/2022 regarding the Civil Wage and Penalty Assessment issued concerning the work Zusser performed on the LADWP Lagoon Refurbishment (which was listed as a project reference). According to the DIR, Zusser was assessed $653,177.48 in penalties for a variety of failures, including but not limited to A) Apprenticeship violations, B) Prevailing wage violations, including regular and overtime rates, C) Misclassifying workers on the project, D) Training fund contribution violations E) Liquidated damages associated with the incorrect wages · The City investigated this claim by KASA and determined that Zusser appears to be a NON- RESPONSIBLE bidder. This determination was not solely based on the reasons alluded to in the Protest relating to Zusser's record before the Department of Industrial Relations but also because the investigation's findings did not instill confidence in staff that Zusser "has demonstrated the attribute of trustworthiness, as well as quality, fitness, capacity, and experience to perform the public works contract satisfactorily."
· Unless Zusser can show good cause, City Staff intends to recommend that the contract be awarded to the next lowest responsive bidder, which it believes to be Nationwide.

Failure to have the Technical ability, qualifications, and experience in constructing similar park projects (Zusser and Nationwide).
· Upon reviewing the bid packages of both Zusser and Nationwide, it is without a doubt that both Zusser and Nationwide are not the most qualified vendors to be awarded this project. Both have very little to no experience with the intricacies required in order to build a park of this size. It appears both contractors listed only one Park project on their references.

Proven Track Record and Competitive Pricing
· KASA is one of the most respected Park builders in Southern California; KASA Construction is also an expert when it comes to heavy civil and street improvement projects. KASA self- performs several trades in-house and owns and operates its own machinery for total control over the work. KASA currently has 2 street improvement projects and four park projects. · KASA is not merely trying to leapfrog the two lowest bidders. In fact, as a result of Zusser being deemed a non-responsible bidder, the lowest bidders, Nationwide and KASA, are separated by approximately $150,000 on this multi-million-dollar project. · It is KASA's opinion that the City and Residents deserve the most qualified bidder for this project, not just the cheapest.
· KASA Construction Inc. is by far the most experienced, qualified bidder for this project.

Due to the aforementioned concerns and KASA's extensive experience in parks projects we respectfully request that the council award the contract for the Barnes Park Stormwater Capture Project to KASA Construction Inc.

Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. 3 Respectfully,
Enrique Vega
Vice President
The Principia Group
On Thu, Jan 25, 2024 at 5:41 PM Daniel "Danny" Damian <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Mr. Vega,
Thank you for reaching out with your concerns. I welcome any points you would like to make regarding the project and recommend that you email them to me as well as to staff for the city council to take into consideration at the February 7th council meeting.

Please CC the following
CEO Enrique Zaldivar - [email protected]
Public Works Director Sam Gutierrez - [email protected] Engineering Manager Romany Basilyous - [email protected] Chief Deputy City Clerk Shirley Quinonez - [email protected] Thank you!
Daniel "Danny" Damian
Councilmember
City of Baldwin Park
14403 E. Pacific Ave.

Baldwin Park, CA 91706
City Hall 626-813-5201
Fax 626-337-2965
Cell 626-634-1860
www.baldwinpark.com
[email protected]
City Hall is Closed on Fridays
From: Enrique Vega <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2024 4:31 PM
To: Daniel "Danny" Damian <[email protected]>
Subject:
4 [CAUTION: External Email -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Good Afternoon Councilmember Damian,
I hope this email finds you doing well. My name is Enrique and I am reaching out on behalf of a vendor that is looking to do work with the City of Baldwin Park. We would like to request a meeting to discuss the Barnes Project Stormwater Capture project bid which the city will be having a hearing for on February the 7th.

We would like the opportunity to discuss some concerns that we have with some of the bidders and the project as a whole. We hope that we will be able to shed some light and highlight some issues we find problematic so that the City and the Residents of Baldwin Park get the most qualified vendor to complete the project.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of this request. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
Enrique Vega
Vice President
The Principia Group
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important

Marion T. Hack
D 213.928.9885
[email protected]

167259427v2
Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
Two California Plaza, 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071

troutman.com

January 16, 2024

VIA E-MAIL
Grant R. Orbach
Best Best & Krieger LLP
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1799
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: BID PROTEST DISPOSITION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Barnes Park Multi Benefit Stormwater Capture Project

THIRD REQUEST FOR EVIDENCE OF NON-RESPONSIBILITY - AMENDED

Mr. Orbach:

This letter is being submitted in response to the City of Baldwin Park’s (“City”) January 11, 2024 letter setting a hearing date for Zusser Company, Inc. (“Zusser”) and Nationwide Contracting Services, Inc. (“Nationwide) to demonstrate they are responsible bidders for the Barnes Park Multi Benefit Stormwater Capture Project (“Project”). Please refer to this letter as we have added additional information that was left out of the letter originally sent on January 15, 2024.

Because of that determination of non-responsibility, the City must provide any evidence it is relying on in its determination of responsibility to Zusser, prior the January 19 date for briefing that the City has set. See City of Inglewood-L.A. County Civic Center Auth. v. Superior Court (1972) 7 Cal.3d 861, 871. The California Supreme Court is very clear on this very point:
“prior to awarding a public works contract to other than the lowest bidder, a public body must notify the low monetary bidder of any evidence reflecting upon his responsibility

1 . “[W]hen a public entity solicits bids, it represents, consistent with the statutory mandate, that if the contract is awarded, it will be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.” (Kajima/Ray Wilson v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transp. Authority (2000) 23 Cal.4th 305, 315.) Grant R. Orbach
January 16, 2024

Page 2 ends

167259427v2
received from others or adduced as a result of independent investigation, afford him an opportunity to rebut such adverse evidence, and permit him to present evidence that he is qualified to perform the contract.]; see also Boydston v. Napa Sanitation Dist. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1362, 1369.) To date the only evidence provided by the City is as follows:
“The conduct described in the Decision of the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations in Case No. 19-0134-PWH, and in addition on the basis of the fact that the results of its reference investigation did not give City staff confidence that Zusser ‘has demonstrated the attribute of trustworthiness, as well as quality, fitness, capacity, and experience to satisfactorily perform the public works contract.’ (Public Code Section 1103).” (See December 12, 2022 letter.)
Since this is the only evidence that the City has identified as the basis for questioning of Zusser’s non-responsibility, Zusser will provide additional rebuttal evidence by January 19 as requested by the City. If the City is basing its decision on any evidence “received from others or adduced as a result of independent investigation” regarding the City of Bell Gardens project or any other information, the City must provide that evidence and Zusser will respond accordingly.

Zusser is not required to rebut evidence that has not be presented nor can it. Wholesale requests for records that are not the basis for the City’s non-responsibility determination is not appropriate nor relevant. If the City has evidence of specific issues as to the City of Bell Garden’s project, Zusser must be informed of such so it can prepare a response and provide the appropriate documents to rebut said allegations.

Of note, the City has not provided to Zusser any evidence of a negative reference obtained by the City. So far, the City has admitted that it did not contact all of Zusser’s references or that some of the references did not respond. (See December 20, 2023 Letter) If there is evidence of a negative reference, it must be provided to allow Zusser to respond. .

Please confirm that the above evidence correctly reflects the record or if the City wishes to amend the record. If the City amends the evidentiary record, Zusser may need more time to respond.

Sincerely,
Marion T. Hack
MTH
cc: Misha Fyodorov

EXHIBIT A

Building the Foundation for our Future
CA License No. 927544 | Classifications: A, B, C-27, C-10 ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

15148 Sierra Bonita Lane, Chino, California 91710
Phone: (909) 457-8260 Fax: (909) 457-8261 | www.kasaconstruction.com List of Parks and Athletic Field Projects
Completed by
KASA Construction

1. 1013ON –Ontario - Veterans Park

2. 1101RE – Redlands – Terrace Park

3. 1103MU – Murrieta - Torrey Pines Park

4. 1205ON – Ontario – South Bon View Park

5. 1208PE – Perris – Mercado Park

6. 1401RP – RPV – Abalone Cove Shoreline Park

7. 1402NM – NMC Builders – Mill Creek Wetlands Park

8. 1403RP – RPV – Abalone Cove Park - Restroom and Parking Lot

9. 1404ON – Ontario – Celebration Park

10. 1406FO – Fontan – Sierra Crest Park D

11. 1408BE – Bellflower – Flora Vista Dog Park

12. 1501NE – Newport – Back Bay Park

13. 1502OR – Orange – Grijalva Park

14. 1504RC – Rancho Cucamonga – Etiwanda Creek Park

15. 1505BE - Bellflower – Zinn Park

16. 1507MO – Moreno Valley – Palm Middle School Athletic Fields

17. 1511GL – Glendora – Drought Tolerant Landscape and Dog Park

18. 1605SP – South Pasadena – Dog Park Project

19. 1606TU – Tustin – Detention Basin Passive Park

20. 1608HU – Huntington Beach – Worthy Park

21. 1701RO – Rosemead – Jay Imperial Park

22. 1702OR – Orange - Yorba Park

23. 1704ON – Ontario – Celebration Park North

24. 1705RI – Rialto – Joe Sampson Park

25. 1708MV – Moreno Valley – J F Kennedy Park

26. 1804CH – Chino Hills - Los Serranos Park

27. 1805JV – Jurupa Valley – Riverbend Park

28. 1902FO – Fontana - Sierra Crest Park

29. 1905LF – Lake Forest – Portola Park

30. 1908CY – Cypress – Oak Knoll Park

31. 2009YU – County of San Bernardino – Yucaipa Regional Park

32. 2006WE – Westminster – Mendez Tribute Park

33. 2008OR – Orange – Handy Park

34. 2101CH – Chino - Discovery Park

35. 2102FO – Fontana – PA16 – Park

15148 Sierra Bonita Lane, Chino, California 91710
Phone: (909) 457-8260 Fax: (909) 457-8261 | www.kasaconstruction.com

36. 2106GG – Garden Grove – West Haven Park

37. 2107JV – Jurupa Valley - Shadow Rock Park

38. 2107JV – Jurupa Valley – Adventure Park

39. 2107JV – Jurupa Valley – Discovery Park

40. 2109AD – Adelanto – Marconi Park

41. 2201MO – Monrovia – Lucinda Garcia Park

42. 2205SF – San Fernando – Layne Park

43. 2303WI – Winchester – KB Willow Glen Park

44. 2304EM – El Monte – Merced Ave Linear Park

45. 2305HO – Homeland – Countryview Park

46. 2307EA – Eastvale – JCSD Mt. View Park

EXHIBIT B

January 18, 2024

Kasa Construction, Inc.

Attn: Sam Kasbar
15148 Sierra Bonita Lane
Chino, CA 91710

Subject: Letter of Recommendation

To Whom it May Concern,

I am writing to express my recommendation for KASA Construction, a company I have had the benefit of collaborating with on multiple projects. As Landscape Architect and Project Manager at David Volz Design, I have seen the successful completion of projects in collaboration with KASA Construction in various cities, including Cypress, Fontana, Irvine, Costa Mesa, and Norwalk.

KASA Construction consistently demonstrated a high level of professionalism, dedication, and expertise . Their commitment to delivering exceptional results within the stipulated timelines and budget constraints is commendable. Their attention to detail, innovative approach, and adherence to industry standards have made them a valuable partner and team member.

Furthermore, their collaborative approach with various agencies and municipalities, including those in Cypress, Fontana, Irvine, Costa Mesa, and Norwalk, reflects their commitment to building positive relationships within the community. KASA Construction has not only met but exceeded our expectations in terms of quality, safety, and overall project management.

It is without hesitation that I recommend KASA Construction for any construction project. Their exemplary work ethic, professionalism, and track record of successful project deliveries make them an invaluable asset to any team. If you have any further questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Luis Pedraza Cardozo,
Licensed Landscape Architect

January 19, 2024

Via Email (gra [email protected])

Grant Orbach
Best Best & Krieger LLP
500 Capitol Mall, Suite 1700
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Nationwide Contracting Services, Inc.’s S
upplemental Response to Bid
Protest on the Barnes Park Multi Benefit Stormwater Capture Project (“Project”)
Dear Mr. Orbach:

A
s you know, this firm represents Nationwide Contracting Services, Inc. (“Nationwide”), who is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder on the Project for the City of Baldwin Park (“City”). We provide this letter in response to your letter dated January 11, 2024.

Nationwide was the second lowest bidder on the Project. Kasa Construction Inc. (“Kasa”), on November 20, 2023, submitted a bid protest claiming that Nationwide’s bid should be found non-responsive. The City responded to Kasa’s letter and correctly found that Zusser Company, Inc.’s bid should be rejected, and that Nationwide’s bid was responsive.

In response to the City’s request, Nationwide responded to Kasa’s bid protest on December 29, 2023. 1 In that response, Nationwide provided evidence and explanations showing that Kasa’s bid protest was factually inaccurate and did not provide sufficient grounds for the City to deem Nationwide’s bid non-responsive. Nationwide’s bid is clearly responsive as it promises to do what the contract documents require. (See, MCM Construction, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 359, 368.) Moreover, Nationwide has duly provided information and support refuting Kasa’s bid protest and showing that its bid substantially conforms to the bid documents. This is all that is required under California law. (See Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. v. City of San Leandro (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1198-1199 [bids that substantially conform to a public agency’s request but contain some error or irregularity may be accepted].) As a last-ditch effort, Kasa submitted a second bid protest letter on December 21, 2023. This second protest letter was sent months after the bid date, and for the first time, Kasa requested that the City determine whether Nationwide is a responsible bidder and

1 Nationwide incorporates its December 29, 2023, response and does not intend to restate the arguments and evidence previously provided to the City.

Grant Orbach
Best Best & Krieger LLP
January 19, 2024

Page 2 of 4 ends

raised again arguments that were previously rejected by the City. 2 Kasa should not be permitted to submit multiple bid protests asserting new and different arguments, the City should reject Kasa’s protests and the City should award the Project to Nationwide the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Clearly, Kasa’s actions are not only unnecessarily dragging out the City’s contracting process, but Kasa’s actions exemplify why disgruntled high bidders should not be allowed to scour bids for inconsequential issues hoping to find immaterial errors. ( Bay Cities Paving & Grading, Inc. v. City of San Leandro (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1181, 1189 [“It certainly would amount to a disservice to the public if a losing bidder were to be permitted to comb through the bid proposal . . . after the fact, [and] cancel the low bid on minor technicalities, with the hope of securing acceptance of his [or hers], a higher bid. Such construction would be adverse to the best interests of the public and contrary to public policy.”].) It is well established that a public entity must “notify the low monetary bidder of any evidence reflecting upon his responsibility received from others or adduced as a result of independent investigation, afford him an opportunity to rebut such adverse evidence, and permit him to present evidence that he is qualified to perform the contract.” (City of Inglewood-Los Angeles County Civic Center Auth. v. Sup. Crt. (1972) 7 Cal.3d 861, 871.) Here, the City has only provided Nationwide with Kasa’s December 21, 2023, letter as “evidence” in support of conducting a non-responsibility hearing.

Kasa’s December 21 letter, however, is factually inaccurate and does not provide a good faith basis for deeming Nationwide a non- responsible bidder. Clearly, if Kasa had sufficient grounds to assert that Nationwide was non- responsible, it would have included those grounds in its original protest and provided sufficient notice and information for Nationwide to properly respond. Instead, Kasa has asserted conclusory arguments based upon a misunderstanding of Nationwide’s experience, a misreading of the bid documents, and a misunderstanding of California law.

As part of its bid protests, Kasa boldly concluded that Nationwide has “little to no experience with the intricacies required in order to build a park of this size.” Kasa provides no evidence in support of this argument. Rather, Kasa’s sole basis for this argument is that:
“It appears both contractors listed only one Park project on their references.”
Notably, this project did not require pre-qualification. Furthermore, the City as part of its awarding of the Project is fully capable and able to independently assess a bidder’s

2 In its November 20 bid protest, Kasa appears to argue that Nationwide should be found a non- responsible bidder, but Kasa provides no specific evidence or arguments to support this position.

Indeed, in each of the paragraphs addressing Nationwide’s bid, Kasa argued that Nationwide’s bid was “non-responsive”. Although paragraph 8 of Kasa’s November 20 bid protest is titled “Non- Responsible Bidder”, nothing in that paragraph discusses responsibility, and instead, Kasa argues that Nationwide’s bid is non-responsive.

Grant Orbach
Best Best & Krieger LLP
January 19, 2024

Page 3 of 4 ends

experience and call on the bidder’s references to verify the bidder’s abilities. 3 Kasa’s attempts to create its own standards in the bid documents is irrelevant and not appropriate under California law. How Kasa views the project requirements or what Kasa deems to be a similar project has no weight on the City’s analysis or decision. If every disgruntled high bidder’s argument regarding a lower bidder’s experience was sufficient grounds to hold a responsibility hearing, then the public works construction industry would be delayed indefinitely. Moreover, as discussed in Nationwide’s December 29 letter, Kasa’s assumptions regarding Nationwide’s experien ce are factually wrong. Nationwide has provided the City with its relevant experience and is prepared to partner with the City to complete this project.

Kasa’s belated attempt to raise a pending litigation involving Nationwide is also irrelevant and not germane to the City’s analysis. Nationwide acknowledges there is a litigation currently pending in United States District Court between Nationwide and the Laborer’s Trust Funds. This is a disputed claim, and the action involves accounting discrepancies concerning contributions made by Nationwide during a specific time period.

During that time, Nationwide was performing work on various projects including projects it believes were not subject to Trust Fund contributions. The parties are currently engaged in exchanging information to resolve this matter. The Trust Funds previously reduced their proposed assessment due to Nationwide voluntarily providing information, and Nationwide believes the current calculations are still inaccurate. Nothing in the Laborer Trust Funds claim suggests that Nationwide acted with an intent to deceive or that Nationwide’s actions were untrustworthy. In fact, Kasa offers no evidence or legal argument to support its argument that a pending dispute over trust fund contributions is grounds for finding a bidder non-responsible.

Turning to the remaining arguments in Kasa’s December 21, letter, and a s previously discussed in Nationwide’s December 29 letter, Kasa incorrectly claims that Nationwide’s bid should be deemed non-responsive because Jon Gilmer Construction was not licensed at the time of bid.

It is clear from the printouts from CSLB website provided by Kasa, (see Exhibit B), and the relevant statutes that the basis for Jon Gilmer Construction’s license being suspended was its failure to renew the worker’s compensation insurance . The License Status section of the CSLB license detail explains that Jon Gilmer Contruction’s “[l]icense is under suspension for failure to comply with Workers Comp.” More importantly, it goes on to explain that
[a] workers’ compensation certificate or exemption statement may have been received by the Board but not yet processed. Once the certificate or exemption statement is processed the suspension will be lifted retroactively to the effective date of the certificate or exemption statement. Ask the

3 Although not required by the bid documents, Nationwide provides the enclosed additional references to the extent necessary to assist the City’s analysis. (See Exhibit A).

Grant Orbach
Best Best & Krieger LLP
January 19, 2024

Page 4 of 4 ends

contractor for proof of worker's compensation and contact the insurance company to verify coverage.
(Exhibit B [emphasis added].) Under California law, Jon Gilmer Construction would have been licensed at the time of bid and able to contract with Nationwide had it timely resolved its worker’s compensation audit. Specifically, u nder California law, Jon Gilmer Construction had until December 21, 2023, to resolve its worker’s compensation audit and have its license activated retroactively to September 21, 2023. 4 (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7125.1, subd. (a).) Jon Gilmer Construction represented that its worker’s compensation insurance was being resolved prior to bid and Nationwide correctly listed Jon Gilmer Construction in its bid . U nder California law , Nationwide is entitled to substitute a subcontractor if the subcontractor’s license is subsequently suspended.5 (Pub. Cont. Code, § 4107, subd. (a)(6).)
Finally, Nationwide provided sufficient evidence showing EverFence’s experience and quali
fications. Nothing in Kasa’s bid protest or the bid instructions indicate that EverFence’s experience is a basis for rejecting Nationwide’s bid.

Based upon the foregoing, Nationwide again requests that the City deny Kasa’s two bid protest s, and award the Project contract to Nationwide, the lowest responsive and responsible bidder on the Project.

Sincerely,

SMTD LAW LLP
Christopher Morrow
cc: C lie
nt
4 As discussed in Nationwide’s December 29 letter, per the CSLB’s website, Jon Gilmer Construction’s worker’s compensation insurance was active through September 21, 2023, and Jon Gilmer had 90 days from that date to resolve any issues with its worker’s compensation carrier. 5 Nor is listing an unlicensed subcontractor the kind of error in arithmetic or clerical mistake in filling out the bid that would have entitled Nationwide to withdraw its bid without penalty. (See Pub. Cont. Code, § 5103; MCM Construction, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 359, 376-377.) Because listing Jon Gilmer Construction would not have allowed Nationwide to withdraw its bid without penalty, Nationwide could not have gained a competitive advantage.

Marion T. Hack
D 213.928.9885
[email protected]

167244907v2
Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders LLP
Two California Plaza, 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071

troutman.com

January 19, 2024

VIA E-MAIL
Grant R. Orbach
Best Best & Krieger LLP
500 Capitol Mall
Suite 1799
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: BID PROTEST DISPOSITION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Barnes Park Multi Benefit Stormwater Capture Project
Hearing Briefing of Zusser Company Inc.

Dear Mr. Orbach:

This letter is being submitted in response to the City of Baldwin Park’s (“City”) January 11, 2024 letter setting a hearing date for Zusser Company, Inc. (“Zusser”) and Nationwide Contracting Services, Inc. (“Nationwide) to demonstrate they are responsible bidders for the Barnes Park Multi Benefit Stormwater Capture Project (“Project”). Zusser, as the lowest responsible bidder, disputes that it is a nonresponsible contractor as outlined by California Law and does not waive and hereby reserves any objections to these hearings.

I. THE CITY’S MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRES IT TO AWARD THE CONTRACT

TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, ZUSSER

The City is required to award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. (See City of Baldwin Park’s Municipal Code §§ 34.27 through 34.38 [all contracts shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder pursuant to the public contract code].) “[W]hen a public entity solicits bids, it represents, consistent with the statutory mandate, that if the contract is awarded, it will be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.” (Kajima/Ray Wilson v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transp. Authority (2000) 23 Cal.4th 305, 315.) Zusser’s bid was the lowest and its bid has already been deemed responsive by the City (See Exhibit 1, City’s letter dated December 12, 2023 at pg. 2). While the base bids for the three bidders (KASA, Nationwide, and Zusser) were close, the overall Project consists of the base bid plus alternatives. Taking the base bid plus the alternatives into account, the overall bid prices differ significantly. Indeed, KASA’s overall bid is $1,451,847 higher than Zusser’s overall Sam Gutierrez
Grant R. Orbach
January 19, 2024

Page 2 ends

167244907v2
bid and Nationwide’s overall bid is $685,056 higher than Zusser’s. Thus, if the City does not accept Zusser’s lowest responsive bid, it will be paying significantly more money for this Project.1 This would be waste of public funds and precisely why the City Charter requires the City to award contracts to the lowest bidder. The City has a fiscal responsibility as well as a legal responsibility to accept the lowest responsive bid.

Furthermore, a finding of nonresponsibility is a serious accusation which would have a major effect on Zusser, who is a small family-owned company. Zusser would have no choice but to fight such a finding in litigation and appeal if necessary. Thus, the City would not only be paying significantly more for the Project but would also be required to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees over unnecessary protracted litigation. Fees incurred to defend such litigation are not recoverable. When looked at as a whole, there is no financial benefit to rejecting Zusser’s lowest bid.

II. THE CITY HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE OF ZUSSER’S

INABILITY TO PERFORM THE CONTRACT

As a matter of law, Zusser is entitled to all evidence upon which the City is relying in its determination of nonresponsibility. (See Boydston v. Napa Sanitation Dist. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1362, 1369; City of Inglewood-L.A. County Civic Center Auth v. Superior Court (1972) 7 Cal.3d 861, 871.) Notwithstanding, the City has not provided such evidence despite four requests from Zusser for said evidence. Disturbingly, the City has also been inconsistent as to the reasons why Zusser is a nonresponsible contractor.

On December 12, 2023, Zusser received a letter from the City rejecting KASA’s bid protest in which the City stated that Zusser was not a non-responsive bidder but that it appeared to be a nonresponsible bidder based on Zusser’s “substantial, repeated, bad faith violations of prevailing wage law.” (See Exhibit 1.) Yet no such examples of “repeated, bad faith violations” were ever provided by the City. The City was apparently basing this statement on one decision by the DIR on a project that was 10 years old where there was no finding of bad faith. The City has never provided any evidence of “repeated, bad faith violations.” On December 14, 2023, Zusser wrote a letter to the City requesting the City provide it with “any evidence reflecting upon [Zusser’s] responsibility received by others or adduced as a result of an independent investigation” as required under California law.2 (See Exhibit 2.) The City had claimed that the “results of its reference investigation did not give City staff confident (sic)” that Zusser was a responsible contractor. (See Exhibit 1, pg. 2.) But, shockingly, on

1 We are informed that the funds for the base bid come from a grant but the alternatives must be paid from the City’s own funds. Thus, not awarding the contract to Zusser would deprive the City of a direct savings of between $685,056 and $1,451,847 and would make the alternatives potentially infeasible.

2 (See City of Inglewood-L.A. County Civic Center Auth v. Superior Court (1972) 7 Cal.3d 861, 871; Boydston v. Napa Sanitation Dist. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1362, 1369.) Sam Gutierrez
Grant R. Orbach
January 19, 2024

Page 3 ends

167244907v2
December 20, 2023, the City’s counsel admitted the City did not contact every reference listed in Zusser’s bid and that some of the references did not respond to the City. (See Exhibit 3.) The City admittedly had no evidence of negative references received for Zusser. Despite this lack of evidence, the City required Zusser to provide further information on five specific projects without any basis for asking for such information.

On December 22, 2023, Zusser provided a fulsome response demonstrating that Zusser is the lowest responsibility bidder including descriptions of Zusser’s work on these projects, whether projects were completed timely, and whether any disputes on the project or warranty issues. (See Exhibit 4.)
Despite Zusser fully responding to the City’s requests, on January 11, 2024, the City sent a letter to KASA, Nationwide and Zusser, setting the date for a hearing on nonresponsibility and yet again asking for more information on a project that Zusser did for the City of Bell Gardens. (Exhibit 5.) Yet the City has never provided any evidence which would support a conclusion that Zusser was a nonresponsible contractor based on Zusser’s work on the Bell Gardens project. Zusser has already provided the following information on that Project, including new information as highlighted:
 The John Anson Ford Park Infiltration Cistern Project in Bell Gardens, CA involved construction of a diversion structure and subsurface infiltration basin beneath the park to capture and recharge both dry-weather and storm runoff.

The work involved construction of subsurface infiltration cistern, pretreatment unit, reinforced concrete box culverts and vaults, installation of storm drain, sewer, park restoration, monument signs, landscaping, irrigation and flat concrete. This project has achieved substantial completion. Zusser has claims for extra work and owner-caused delays while the City of Bell Gardens has assessed liquidated damages against Zusser. Zusser contends that any delays that were not owner-caused, were the fault of its supplier, Jensen Enterprises, Inc. Jensen had difficulties with the fabrication of its precast concrete boxes which resulted in repair work and delays. Jensen used a dry-cast method which has since been banned for use in cistern systems by several public agencies. In fact, because of bad experience at Bell Garden Project, the same designer, CWE, has specifically prohibited the use of the dry-cast method for stormwater infiltration system in Barnes Park. (See Exhibit 6 page D-51 of project specification paragraph WSI-1 2, “Dry - cast units may not be used.”) The parties are currently in the ADR process with a mediator pursuant to the provisions in the contract and thus are unable to provide you with mediation protected materials.

Zusser believes that the claims between itself and the City will be resolved shortly. No lawsuits, demands for arbitration, or other legal actions have been filed to date.

Sam Gutierrez
Grant R. Orbach
January 19, 2024

Page 4 ends

167244907v2
If the City has evidence “received from others or adduced as a result of independent investigation” regarding something specific to the Bell Gardens project, then Zusser will respond to those specific allegations. But providing claim documents without any context would be irrelevant and ultimately useless to the City’s analysis of responsibility. The City has no personal knowledge of the Bell Gardens project or the claims. It is a mystery why the City needs these documents, unless the City is withholding information that it has received on that particular project. We would hope that the City would not violate the law so brazenly. Again, Zusser will provide any document the City needs in order to rebut any evidence that the City has “received from others or adduced as a result of independent investigation” regarding the Bell Gardens project.

On January 15 and 16, Zusser asked the City, for the third and fourth time, of any evidence reflecting upon Zusser’s nonresponsibility so that Zusser could properly rebut or respond to this evidence. (See Exhibits 7 and 8.) The City must provide all evidence “received from others or adduced as a result of independent investigation.” (City of Inglewood-L.A.

County Civic Center Auth. v. Superior Court (1972) 7 Cal.3d 861, 871.) To date, the City has provided no such evidence except questions regarding a DIR issue which will be discussed below.

III. ZUSSER IS A RESPONSIBLE CONTRACTOR

Indeed, while the City has provided no evidence to suggest Zusser’s inability to perform the contract at issue, Zusser has twenty years of successfully performed projects. Zusser is a family run general contractor specializing in public works that serves the greater Los Angeles and Orange County as well as Riverside, Imperial and Ventura Counties. Zusser has successfully performed similar projects to this Project including a wide variety of underground water storage, stormwater capture, and other water systems. In addition, the projects include a variety of public parks and various trades including but not limited to electrical, concrete, structural, demolition, grading and excavation, asphalt, masonry, utilities, sewer, drainage, water lines, and design and survey. Examples of these projects, as requested by the City, include:
 The West Hollywood Pan Pacific Retention Basin Diversion Gate & Control House Upgrade Project involved replacement of existing slide gate, upgrading the mechanical, electrical, and control systems for the new slide gate, and construction of a new control house within the Pan Pacific Retention Basin. The initial contract scope has been entirely fulfilled. The outstanding tasks involve miscellaneous additional electrical work initiated by the County. The anticipated completion date for these remaining tasks is currently set for January 2024. This schedule aligns with the overall contractual timeframe as allocated. There were no disputes on this project and all issues regarding extra work were resolved through mutually agreed change orders. In addition, there were no warranty issues on this project.

Sam Gutierrez
Grant R. Orbach
January 19, 2024

Page 5 ends

167244907v2
 The Point Dume Staircase Replacement Project involved removal of existing the stairway and construction of new stairway with an ADA trail above the staircase in Malibu, CA. This was an extremely technically complicated project involving work on an almost 90-degree slope. Despite the technical challenges, this project was completed successfully and on time. There were no disputes on this project and all issues regarding extra work were resolved through mutually agreed change orders. In addition, there were no warranty issues on this project.  LADWP Lagoon Refurbishment involved construction of a liner basin of over 7,000 linear of PVC, on-site screening of over 6,000 cy of underdrain rock, disposal of hazardous materials, refurbishment of existing valve structures and installation of electrical panes and utility cabinets. This project was completed successfully and on time. There were no disputes on this project with the owner and all issues regarding extra work were resolved through mutually agreed change orders. In addition, there were no warranty issues on this project.

Zusser is currently appealing a decision from the DIR in the Los Angeles Superior Court which involves wage classification, as more fully discussed below.  Robert B. Diemer Water Treatment Plant Fire & Portable Water Pump Station involved construction of the treatment plant and pump station including mechanical pipe work, structural concrete, flat concrete, electrical work, piles, shoring and excavation, structural steel, and site work. This project was completed successfully and on time. There were no disputes on this project and all issues regarding extra work were resolved through mutually agreed change orders. In addition, there were no warranty issues on this project.

Further, Zusser already provided a letter from its surety stating that based on its investigation, Zusser is a company well versed in the construction industry with a great depth of experienced people, known for their ability to complete contracts on schedule, within budget and with exceptional workmanship. (See Exhibit 9, Surety Letter.) In its almost twenty years in business, Zusser has attained a network of reputable subcontractors, designers, and surveyors that meet its stringent quality and dependability requirements.

Lastly, Zusser has enclosed a number of positive references from public entities herein. (Exhibit 10, References.)
Accordingly, Zusser is fully capable of satisfactorily performing the contract for the Project and is the lowest responsible bidder on the Project. The City has no competent evidence to the contrary.

Sam Gutierrez
Grant R. Orbach
January 19, 2024

Page 6 ends

167244907v2
IV. THE DIR DECISION IS NOT RELEVANT TO ZUSSER’S PERFORMANCE ON

THE CONTRACT NOR ITS TRUSTWORTHINESS

The only piece of evidence Zusser has been provided, and therefore the only evidence which Zusser is required to respond to, is the DIR decision on a 10-year old project. The Decision of the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations in case No. 19- 0134-PWH did not include any finding of bad faith and instead involved a disagreement over a worker classification issue. Moreover, this decision is currently being appealed in the Los Angeles Superior Court, thus this current decision is not final.

The DIR’s decision was based on a determination that Zusser misclassified sewer and storm drain pipelayer workers on the project. Zusser contends that the alleged misclassification is not supported by the evidence. Indeed, the DIR decided to reclassify the workers as pipefitters because it claimed the lagoons on the project were connected to a plant, yet the evidence demonstrated that when Zusser performed work in the lagoons, there was no connecting pipeline to any facility. The uncontradicted evidence is that Zusser’s work was performed exclusively in the lagoons, which would make Zusser’s classification of the workers the correct one.

Additionally, the main point of contention is not whether the Plant and Lagoons were connected, but the fact that refurbishment of waste solids lagoons did not involve any water treatment components typically associated with specialized pipefitting trades in the water treatment plans. Therefore, the use of pipelayers for sewer and storm drain, applicable to underground piping including solid waste disposal was totally appropriate for the scope of this project which was refurbishing of refurbishment of lagoons used for solids disposal and includes modifications to the existing piping system.

In any event, this decision certainly has no bearing on Zusser’s “trustworthiness, as well as quality, fitness, capacity, and experience to satisfactorily perform the public works contract.” (Pub. Contract Code § 1103.) This is a simple disagreement on how a small portion of workers were classified on a job. Zusser had a right to contest what it proved was an incorrect classification of workers. There was no finding of bad faith on the part of Zusser nor could it be.

The project is 10 years old and Zusser has performed numerous projects with prevailing wage worker since that time. Despite this issue, other public entities had no issue considering Zusser a responsible contractor because this issue had no impact on whether Zusser could competently perform the work on their Projects. Zusser has successfully completed several dozen projects since this issue arose.
a. The Operating Engineer and Labor and Cement Misclassification Issue Is Not Relevant

The DIR Decision found that Zusser misclassified workers in the Operating Engineer and Laborer classifications and underpaid workers classified as Cement Masons. Zusser made a Sam Gutierrez
Grant R. Orbach
January 19, 2024

Page 7 ends

167244907v2
financial decision not to fight the DIR decision regarding the reclassification of these workers due to the legal costs of doing so and the fact that two workers involved in the alleged misclassification have since passed away. Notwithstanding, Zusser maintains that these workers were appropriately classified and that if there was any misclassification, it was due to a good faith error. However, Zusser notes that the wages of laborers and cement masons are almost the same and therefore the alleged misclassification did not cause harm to the employees. This issue was also a difficult one to provide evidence for records in the field were not clear as to which classification was appropriate as these trades often overlap. Since that time, Zusser set up a state-of-the-art system to avoid misclassification and claims in the future, which has been very successful.

In order to “promptly and voluntarily” prevent any future misclassification, Zusser set up a system to prevent these misclassification issues that are common on projects with prevailing wages. Over the years, in order to eradicate any potential worker misclassification, Zusser has developed one of the most sophisticated four-way classification tracking system in the industry.

This consists of (1) a special cell phone (or tablet) application to track daily reporting and tasks of individuals in near real time; (2) full-time solar-powered cameras installed on project locations which allows a timekeeper to double check employee tasks and classifications throughout the day and during payroll preparation; (3) a time sheet which reflects classification, work performed, and hours worked; and (4) check boxes within timecard which allow workers to certify that the classifications listed are correct. (See Exhibit 11, examples of Zusser’s system.) If any data entry mistakes are discovered, they are corrected typically by the next pay period.3 Zusser had gone above and beyond to make sure DIR issues are mitigated. These are not the actions of a contractor that is not responsible, rather it is the height of responsibility. It is doubtful, that Nationwide and/or KASA have developed such a robust system to ensure proper classification of workers.

Finally, it should also be noted that the alleged misclassification here had no bearing on Zusser’s timely and quality performance of this project. Indeed, the project was completed on time and to the complete satisfaction of the owner. Again, we reiterate the fact that the DIR decision certainly has no bearing on Zusser’s “trustworthiness, as well as quality, fitness, capacity, and experience to satisfactorily perform the public works contract.” (Pub. Contract Code § 1103.) As stated in our prior letters to the City, in the almost ten years since the project at issue in the DIR’s decision, Zusser has been deemed a responsible contractor on several dozens of public works projects in California, involving hundreds of workers under prevailing wages. (See Exhibit 12, portfolio.)

3 It should be noted that pay checks are always released regardless of any claim by the worker that the hours, classifications, work description or rates are wrong, or injuries reported. (Id.) Sam Gutierrez
Grant R. Orbach
January 19, 2024

Page 8 ends

167244907v2
VI. THE CITY CANNOT EMPLOY FAVORITISM IN ITS AWARD

The “purpose of requiring governmental entities to open the contracts process to public bidding is to eliminate favoritism, fraud and corruption; avoid misuse of public funds; and stimulate advantageous marketplace competition.” (Marshall v. Pasadena Unified School Dist. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1241, 1256.) “Although public bodies have discretion to determine which bidders are responsible, they may not, if they determine more than one bidder is responsible, make the award on the basis of relative superiority.” (Boydston, supra, 222 Cal.App.3d 1362, 1369 [emphasis added].) In City of Inglewood-L.A. County Civic Center Auth, supra, 7 Cal.3d 861, after the civic center authority awarded a contract who was not the lowest bidder, it was found that the award was based on a determination that the higher bidder was relatively superior in ability to perform the work. In setting aside the ruling, the Court of Appeal found that the statute had no basis for applying the relative superiority concept and rather the civic center authority was required to award the contract to the lowest bidder, unless that bidder was found not responsible, i.e. not qualified to do the particular work under consideration.

Here, the City may not similarly apply the concept of relative superiority where all three low bidders have allegations which might be used to challenge the “trustworthiness, as well as quality, fitness, capacity and experience to satisfactorily perform the public works contract.” Instead, the City must award the contract to the lowest bidder—Zusser. Each contractor here has issues which could lead to a subjective determination that the bidder is nonresponsible.4 Nationwide has a pending lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 8:23-cv-00521, filed on March 22, 2023. (Exhibit 13.) This lawsuit involves claims that Nationwide owes the Construction Laborers Trust Funds damages due to Nationwide’s failure to make monthly benefit contributions for its employees. This is a recent serious allegation and far more relevant that Zusser’s DIR dispute. Here, Nationwide is accused of not paying for employee’s retirement funds. Another recent pending lawsuit was filed against Nationwide by the Creditors Adjustment Bureau, Inc. in Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2022-01296113-CU-BC-NJC. (Exhibit 14.) In this lawsuit, the plaintiff, as the assignor of the State Compensation Insurance Fund, claims that Nationwide failed to pay premiums on the workers compensation insurance policy provided by the assignee. Again, this is a serious allegation in which Nationwide is accused of not paying workers comp insurance premiums. In a third lawsuit filed in the Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2023- 01326343-CU-BC-NJC, homeowners sued Nationwide for construction defects. (Exhibit 15.) This pending lawsuit goes directly to Nationwide’s fitness and capacity to perform work on a project. Thus, the second low bidder Nationwide is involved in three court actions, that are more persuasive evidence as to the ‘trustworthiness, as well as quality, fitness, capacity and experience to satisfactorily perform the public works contract” than the alleged evidence against

4 However, Zusser is not advocating that any of the bidders be deemed nonresponsible. Each bidder has been in business for many years and through that time run into issues that are normal for any business.

The point is that one bidder’s issues cannot be held to a higher standard than similar issues experienced by the other bidders.

Sam Gutierrez
Grant R. Orbach
January 19, 2024

Page 9 ends

167244907v2
Zusser. Thus, any finding that Zusser’s one 10-year violation is an indicator of nonresponsibility over three lawsuits against Nationwide that involve alleged wage theft, construction defects and failure to insure employees, could only be considered favoritism.

Moreover, in 2014, KASA was involved in a personal injury lawsuit filed in the San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. CIVDS1414976. (Exhibit 16.) This case involved an automobile accident wherein the defendant was employed by KASA and driving a KASA vehicle. This lawsuit speaks to worker safety issues, a serious concern. It would be highly arbitrary and capricious for the City to hold Zusser to a higher standard that the other bidding contractors. The allegations against Nationwide and KASA are even worse than those made against Zusser—a single 10-year-old DIR decision that has no bearing on whether Zusser could perform the work on that project.

Furthermore, the City has a history of awarding contracts to contractors with DIR issues.

As an example, All American Asphalt was awarded a contract in June 2022 but there are DSLE claims against them reported in 2020 and June 2022, and it appears the June 2022 claim is still ongoing. (See Exhibit 17, record from DSLE.) PCN3 was awarded a contract by the City in 2022 and they also had a wage claim by the DSLE in 2012. (Id.) Clearly the City has never used DIR violations or decisions in determining contractors are responsible, so it is highly questionable that now, all of a sudden, Zusser’s alleged violation over a worker classification issue is a compelling reason to determine Zusser’s responsibility.

VII. CONCLUSION

The City’s “evidence” is clearly insufficient to classify Zusser as a nonresponsible bidder.

Moreover, with respect to this Project, Zusser no doubt has the requisite trustworthiness, quality, fitness, capacity, and experience to satisfactorily perform the contract in question.

Zusser is fully capable of satisfactorily performing the contract for the Project and is the lowest responsible bidder on the Project. The City has no competent evidence to the contrary.

Zusser is confident that it has demonstrate and will demonstrate that it is the lowest responsible bidder on this Project. Moreover, Zusser is fully prepared to pursue all legal remedies should the City decide to deny Zusser the contract on the basis of nonresponsibility.

Sincerely,

Marion T. Hack
MTH
cc: Misha Fyodorov

Exhibit A

R. REX PARRIS RAJ MALHI

MAYOR COUNCILMEMBER

MARVIN CRIST LAUREN HUGHES-LESLIE

VICE MAYOR COUNCILMEMBER

KEN MANN JASON CAUDLE

COUNCILMEMBER CITY MANAGER
44933 Fern Avenue
Lancaster, CA 93534
661.723.6000
cityoflancasterca.gov
January 18, 2024
Sent Via Email
Nationwide General Construction Services
7660 Liberty Dr.,
Huntington Beach CA, 92647
Re: LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION
The City of Lancaster hereby expresses its commendation to Nationwide General Construction Services for their outstanding performance on the Lancaster Health District (Phase I), LACMTA Project ID# F9131. The team demonstrated expeditious and thorough submission of submittals, as well as timely issuance of Change Orders.

Moreover, the team provided prompt and accurate Certified Payroll Records (CPRs) to our Labor Compliance team, fully complying with City regulations regarding payment to employees and subcontractors.

The City of Lancaster recognizes and appreciates Nationwide General Construction Services' unwavering commitment to quality, timeliness, and compliance in this project.

Sincerely,
Araxie Kahramanian
Analyst
PW City Engineering
AK:at

Pho
ne:951-208-4320Office
E-mail:[email protected]
24849
LornaDr
MorenoValley,CA92553
LicenseNo.#814643
UCELE
CTRIC

Sincerely,
CarlosUrbinaSr.
(909) 821-9182
Owner
January 17, 2024
The City of Baldwin Park
14403 Pacific Avenue
Baldwin Park, Ca 91706
Project: Barnes Park Multi-Benefit Stormwater Capture
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to express my recommendation for Nationwide General Construction Services, with whom i've had the pleasure of working closely with over the past 15+ of our company's 23.years. As a subcontractor, our professional relationship has been longstanding and positive.

Nationwide General Construction Services' leadership has exhibited effective communication, proactive problem-solving abilities, and payment reliability. Their dedication to deliver high-quality results on time and within budget has been instrumental in the successful completion of numerous projects.

Should you require further information or wish to discuss Nationwide General Construction Services in more detail, please feel free to contact me directly.

Exhibit B

D-51
SECTION SWI – STORMWATER INFILTRATION SYSTEM
This specification describes a reinforced concrete subsurface storage and infiltration system, produced by a manufacturer that is regularly engaged in the engineering design and production of stormwater infiltration systems for at least five (5) years and which have a history of successful production, acceptable to the Engineer.

SWI1 GENERAL
SWI1-1 Design Requirements
The following design requirements shall apply:

1. Precast concrete modular stormwater detention/infiltration shall comply with ASTM C858.

2. Dry-cast units may not be used.

3. Precast concrete subsurface infiltration system shall be sized in accordance with the following specifications:
a. Subsurface infiltration system must have a minimum capacity of 1,346,400 gallons (about 180,000 cubic feet or 4.1 acre-feet) and a minimum footprint of 20,000 square feet.

4. System shall be designed so modules are aligned and have channels that extend to the bottom of the modules, allowing for relatively unrestricted fluid flow in both directions.

5. The invert of the system must be level and continuous to allow for maintenance.

6. Minimum structural design loading (ASTM C857)
a. Total cover: as indicated on Plans
b. Concrete shall be designed for AASHTO HS-20 wheel loading c. Minimum soil bearing pressure: 3,000 pounds per square foot (psf) d. Vertical and lateral soil pressures shall be determine using:
i. Groundwater below invert
ii. Lateral soil pressures to be based on active earth pressure

1. Lateral soil pressure (unsaturated) = 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for 120 pcf backfill unit weight
iii. Vertical soil pressures

1. Live load = HS-20-44 and Dead load = 120 pcf cover fill unit weight

7. Contractor to verify geotechnical requirements

8. Backfill on the sides of the precast system shall be structure backfill, ¾-inch crushed rock, or as recommended by the manufacturer and approved by the Engineer. Backfill over the top of the structure shall have a maximum unit weight of 120 pcf.

December 14, 2023

To whom it may concern,

Zusser Company Inc. successfully carried out and completed the “Park to Playa Trail:

Stoneview Nature Center to Scenic Overlook” project in Culver City, CA.

This project was awarded to Zusser Company Inc. by Los Angeles County Public Works.

I worked on th e project as the Los Angeles County Public Works Owner's Project Manager.

If you have any questions, please call me at (213) 840-7004.

Sincerely,

Ryan Kristan

PROJECT MANAGER

Mikhail Fyodorov <[email protected]>
RE: Fountain Valley Contractor Follow-up
DeCoursey, Chris <[email protected]> Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 12:47 PM To: Mark Bray <[email protected]>
Hi Mark,

Please see my answers in RED below. Zusser is a good responsive firm! My cell is (714) 720-6066, if you need more and want to talk directly. Have a Happy Thanksgiving and Holidays!

Chris DeCoursey, PE
Construction Manager
Orange County Fire Authority
Office: 714-573-6473 | Mobile: 714- 720-6066
We visualize problems and solutions through the eyes of those we serve.

From: Mark Bray [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2019 10:47 AM
To: DeCoursey, Chris <[email protected]>
Subject: Fountain Valley Contractor Follow-up

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Good morning Chris,
We opened bids for a small construction project yesterday and wanted to follow up with you regarding a contractor that listed you as a reference for Fire Station 42 Retaining Wall and Foundation Remediation.

I am looking to get some input on Zusser Company, Inc. and would like to discuss when you have a minute.

Things I am looking for are:

Their professionalism, I principally dealt with Anton Fyodorov, Misha Fyodorov and Rick Rodriguez of Zusser and found them to be extremely professional, knowledgeable, and responsive. They self-performed most of the work scope on our project with the exception of Foundation/slab foam jacking and v-ditch installation.

Their timeliness,
They were excellent and very expedient on submittals, RFI’s, change requests, and certified payroll.

They also handled agency compliance both State labor and City building department, documentation and test/inspection

reports efficiently.

They complete on budget. The project was completed nearly a month ahead of schedule. There were minor budget cost increase change orders for unforeseen subsurface conditions and improved value engineering installation which didn’t have a significant cost effect on the anticipated project budget (basically, under budget on the Agency’s anticipated CIP budget for the included work scope).

I generally would like to know if you would hire them again.

I would definitely work with Zusser again if the opportunity presents itself. In fact, Zusser has also successfully performed projects for OC Parks based on my recommendation and their performance.

My cell phone is 949-344-1185.

Thank you,
Mark Bray
PW Project Manager

Full Time Cameras (Solar Powered)
Installed Onsite

Full Time Cameras (Solar Powered)
Installed Onsite
Online Interface for Site Camera Footage
Website automatically has permanent archiving of site video/ photos at 15 minute intervals (maximum) at several camera angles during site working hours.

Allows Zusser to re-visit the full history of project including the laborer and equipment onsite during a specific date/ time.

Online Time Card Reporting System-
Custom designed electronic time card reporting system which transmits information to our email server for permanent archiving of the daily time resources. This system is implemented for Zusser staff to use on all projects.

Physical (Paper) Time Sheets
Filled out and signed by employee with each paycheck
ZUSSER COMPANY, INC.

COMPANY PORTFOLIO

We would like to introduce Zusser Company, Inc. as a full-size service construction company specializing in public works, heavy-civil and municipal construction in the Greater Southern California area.

Zusser’s expertise encompasses construction work such as excavation, grading, demolition, concrete work, rubber dam removal and replacement, infrastructure upgrades, park restoration, stormwater management, and more.

Zusser has successfully completed projects for various clients, including government agencies such as the State of California, City of Whittier, County of Los Angeles, Inland Empire Utilities Agency, Los Angeles County Public Works, California Department of Parks and Recreation, and others. The projects involve diverse tasks such as rubber dam installations, staircase replacements, infiltration cistern construction, monument installations, and seismic retrofits.

Zusser has demonstrated competence in managing contracts of varying amounts, ranging from smaller projects like the Buena Park Fallen Officer Memorial to larger-scale endeavors such as the San Gabriel River Rubber Dam Removal and Replacement and Bell Gardens Cistern Project.

Zusser possesses both General Engineering A, Building Construction B, and Hazardous Substances Removal HAZ licenses. Zusser is fully insured and bonded.

Zusser has a network of reputable subcontractors, designers, and surveyors that meet our stringent quality and dependability requirements.

Please contact me at your convenience if you are interested in additional information or have any project you want to discuss.

We enclosed some major project reference list along with selected photographs.

T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S

1. Our Values
About Us
Why Choose Zusser
Values

2. Our Qualifications
Relevant Experience

3. Our Team
Resumes

Zusser Company is uniquely qualified for today’s construction environment. Our successful track record in designing and building urban development and civil projects will enable us to produce an end product that will suit the needs of the client and all end users. Our experienced staff of planners, engineers, and builders approach each project with the future generations in mind.

WHO WE ARE
Zusser Company Inc. (ZCI) is a general contractor, construction firm that serves the greater Los Angeles and Orange County Area. ZCI is a family run business founded 19 years ago (2005) in a small home office in Orange County, CA. ZCI aims to plan, design, build, and deliver high quality projects with friendly professional, efficient, and sustainable service. We strive to implement a long-term relationship with our clients based on communication, transparency, trust, and an anticipation of their needs.

WHY CHOOSE ZUSSER?
Selecting Zusser Company for this your
construction needs is a clear choice for several
reasons- our extensive experience in all
construction areas and trades and our
commitment to client satisfaction. There is no
project too big, too small, or too difficult.

The greatest asset our team brings is our
widespread success in construction. Our
company has experience in everything from
Rubber Dam Replacements in the Santa Ana
River, to emergency pipe repairs for the
Metropolitan Water District. This vast
experience allows us to have established
relationships with industry consultants and
engineers and anticipate issues that are
important to you.

MISSION STATEMENT
•Provide development, infrastructure, planning and environmental services to private and public clients in local, regional markets
•Lead as professionals specializing in planning, design and construction •Look forward to the future with a commitment to building opportunities and value for our clients and ourselves
•To deliverhigh quality projects with friendly, professional and efficient service •Build a long term relationshipwith our clients, based on full transparency, quality, and timely service
.

OUR VALUES

INTEGRITY
We value high ethical construction practices based on the values of honest and hard work.

TEAMWORK
Zusser’sgoal is to collaborate with all team members associated with our projects including clients, partners, subcontractors, sub-consultants, and vendors.

SAFETY
Our goal is zero accidents and zero injuries with work tasks designed to minimize or eliminate hazards to personnel, process, equipment, and the general public. No employee should ever perform tasks that may endanger his/her own safety and health or that of other. When implemented, these requirements will help protect site personnel, visitors, and the public from exposure to potential safety and health hazards.

QUALITY
Zusser’sgoal is the ensure we meet the target qualities and the owner’s expectations. This will be accomplished by monitoring and controlling the level of quality produced by the project, utilizing a Construction Quality Control Plan (CQCP)

1. New Building construction.

2. Electrical work.

3. Concrete works including Pavers and decorative concrete.

4. Structural work.

5. Demolition work.

6. Grading and excavation of the small and large scale project.

7. Asphalt paving and repairs.

8. Masonry and Block work.

9. Utilities: Sewer and Drainage. Manholes.

10. Water lines and water supply.

11. Design and Survey.

12. Emergency repairs.

13. Project management, estimating, and construction procurement.

C O N S T R U C T I O N E X P E R I E N C E
Zusser specialized in the following Heavy Civil Construction:

Highways and Roads:
•Construction of roadways
•Traffic control, temporary and permanent
•Pedestrian bridge construction
Dams and Reservoirs:
•Installation of rubber dams for water storage and flood control •Constructing reservoirs and associated infrastructure
•Installation of temporary water storage tanks
Water and Wastewater Treatment Plants:
•Building water treatment and pump stations plants for clean water supply •Constructing wastewater treatment facilities
•Removal of sediment for aeration and desilting ponds
Stormwater Management:
•Constructing stormwater drainage systems
•Building retention basins and flood control structures

C O N S T R U C T I O N E X P E R I E N C E
Rubber Dam #3- County
of Los Angeles
Rubber Dam #3- County
of Los Angeles
Conejo Creek
Maintenance Project
Conejo Creek
Maintenance Project
Pipeline Construction:
•Installing pipelines for potable, non-potable, and sewer distribution Urban Development Projects:
•Construction of public spaces and Parks
Levees and Flood Protection:
•Building and repairing embankments for flood protection •Constructing flood control channels
Educational Institutions:
•Building schools and educational facilities, on campus Retaining Walls:
•Segmented block retaining walls
•Construction of slough walls and cast-in-place retaining walls •Re-compaction and repair of slope failures
Landscape and Irrigation:
•Planting of trees, shrubs, sod, and hydroseeding
•Installation of irrigations systems for commercial landscaping •Large tree demolition and removal
•Tree protection
Fire Damage & Hazardous Material Clean-up:
•Permitting and compliance for hazardous waste clean-up •Classification and disposal of RCRA and Non-RCRA hazardous waste •Demolition and removal of fire damaged properties

C O N S T R U C T I O N E X P E R I E N C E
City of Pasadena-
“Eastside Well
Collector”
City of Pasadena-
“Eastside Well
Collector” Woosley Fire Clean-upWoosley Fire Clean-up
Zusser has experience in the following Park Construction:

Walking Paths and Trails:

Paved or natural pathways for walking, jogging, or biking Trail construction with materials like asphalt, concrete, gravel, or mulch
Green Spaces and Lawns:

Open areas with grass for picnics, sports, or relaxation Irrigation systems for lawn maintenance
Sports Facilities:

Soccer fields, baseball diamonds, or multi-use sports fields Public Art Installations:

Sculptures, statues, and other artistic elements
Restrooms and Amenities:

Public restroom facilities
Drinking fountains and waste disposal stations
Lighting:

Pathway lighting for safety and nighttime use
Decorative lighting for accentuating features
Informational Signage:

Wayfinding signs and maps
Parking Facilities:

Parking lots or designated parking areas
Bicycle racks for cyclists
Security and Safety Features:

Surveillance cameras systems
Accessibility features, such as ramps and ADA-compliant pathways

C O N S T R U C T I O N E X P E R I E N C E
City of Malibu- Malibu
Bluffs Park
City of Malibu- Malibu
Bluffs Park
City of Malibu- Legacy
Park
City of Malibu- Legacy
Park
County of Los Angeles-
Pan Pacific Park
County of Los Angeles-
Pan Pacific Park
Bell Gardens, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: City of Bell Gardens - Public Works
Contract Amount: $15,600,000
Architect: CWE, Inc.

Completed: 2023

PROJECT SUMMARY
•Construction of Subsurface Infiltration Cistern,
Pretreatment unit, reinforced concrete box culvert
and vaults.
•Installation of storm drain, sewer, AC Pavement,
Park restoration, monument signs, landscaping,
irrigation system, and flat concrete.

John Anson Ford Park Infiltration
Cistern

Bell Gardens, CA
John Anson Ford Park Infiltration
Cistern

Malibu, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: California Department of Parks and Recreations
Contract Amount: $3,600,000
Completed: 2022

PROJECT SUMMARY
•Remove existing stairway and construct a new timber
& concrete stairway.
•Build cast-in-drill concrete and encased timber pole
foundation supports with topside landings and beach
landings oriented to serve the primary path of travel.
•Build ADA trail with native material, supported by
timber restaging walls
Point Dume Staircase Project
Malibu, CA
Point Dume Staircase Project

Malibu, CA
Point Dume Staircase Project

Bell Gardens, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: City of Bell Gardens - Public Works
Contract Amount: $205,000
Completed: 2023

PROJECT SUMMARY
•Construction of water, sewer, electrical utilities for the pre-fabricated restroom including preparation
of the foundation
Installation for a Prefabricated
Restroom at ABC Field

Redondo Beach, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: City of Redondo Beach
Contract Amount: $900,000
Completed: 2012

PROJECT SCOPE
Renovation of the Pier Deck Surface including
Demolition, PCC Pavement, Interlocking Pavers,
Decorative Concrete Banding, Site Furnishing,
Channel Drains and Piping, Electrical Work,
SWPPP
Redondo Beach Pier
Improvements, Phase I

Yorba Linda, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: Metropolitan Water District of So. California
Contract Amount: $5,000,000
Completed: 2012

PROJECT SCOPE
•Construct Robert B. Diemer Water Treatment
Plant Fire and Potable Water Pump Station
including Mechanical Pipe Work, Structural
Concrete, Flat Concrete, Electrical work.
•Install 30” & 36” CIDH Piles. Shore and excavate
up to 20 feet deep. Bore and Case 54” Steel Pipe.

Install Structural Steel and Miscellanies Metals.

Painting and Cathodic Protection. Site Work
Including Demolition, Dirtwork, New Asphalt,
Concrete, Retaining Walls and Landscape.

Robert Diemer Water
Treatment Plant Fire &
Portable Water Pump Station

Savage Canyon Landfill,
Whittier , CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: Whittier Utility Authority
Contract Amount: $1,800,000
Completed: 2013

PROJECT SCOPE
•Construction of a Lined Landfill Cell for Phase 2C
at the Savage Canyon Landfill located in Whittier.
•The work consist of Mass Excavation, Subgrade
Preparation, Earthwork, Installation of High
Density Polyethylene (HDPE) Geomembrane,
Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL), Geocomposite,
Geotextiles, HDPE and PVC Piping, Surface Water
Control Structures.

Phase 2C Liner Construction

Colton, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: City of Colton
Contract Amount: $1,300,000
Completed: 2013

PROJECT SUMMARY
•Construction of new Well Pumping Plant which
includes Site Grading, Aggregate Base and Paving.

Construct Well head Improvement including Pump
Pedestal, Gravel Access and Construction of Well Pump
Foundation.
•Construction of Well Blow off Drain and Discharge
Piping and Fittings, Concrete Structure, Chlorination
System including 1,000 gal Containment Storage Tank,
Pumps and Appurtenances.
•Electrical Work including Building and Site work.

Painting and Coating.

Well Pumping Plant 30 atFogg
Street

Ontario, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: City of Ontario
Contract Amount: $3,400,000
Completed: 2015

PROJECT SUMMARY
•Water System Improvements including
installation of 1,300 lf of CML&C water
transmission pipeline, installation of RCP,
connection to existing at various street
intersection, traffic control, pavement repairs,
street restoration, demolition.
•Relocation of the existing Well No. 41 Chlorine
Generation and Injection system, construction of
CMU building, installation of a Single Pass Ion
Exchange Perforate Wellhead Treatment System
for Well No. 41.
•Electrical and system integration work.

Well No. 41 Wellhead
Treatment System

Granda Hills, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: Metropolitan Water District of So. California
Contract Amount: $3,600,000
Completed: 2017

PROJECT SUMMARY
•Construction of liner basin- over 7,000 linear of PVC, utility ductbanks, large maintenance holes,
modification of existing maintenance holes, installation of standpipes, submersible pumps and turbidity meters
•On-site screening of over 6,000 cy of underdrain rock, disposal of hazardous material, installation of 13,000 cy of crushed rock
•Refurbishment of existing decant valve structures for
four lagoons including asbestos and PCB abatement,
•Installation of electrical panes and utility cabinets.

LADWP Lagoon Refurbishment
El Centro, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: Imperial County
Contract Amount: $8,100,000
Completed: 2019

PROJECT SUMMARY
•Remove waste and impacted soil from site and re-
grade to a uniform surface.
•Removal & disposal of Cal-Haz waste and non-
hazardous waste.
•Onsite processing of existing concrete and placement
of reclaimed concrete.

Clean Closure of the Cruickshank
Road Illegal Disposal Site

Culver City, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: County of Los Angeles
Contract Amount: $1,800,000
Completed: 2018

PROJECT SUMMARY
•Stone Nature Center to Overlook Segment: New
decomposed granite trails, soldier pile retaining walls at slope hillsides, shoring, sire demolition, grading,
excavation, interceptor drain, bench cuts at sloped
hillsides, post and cable rails, fencing, landscape and irrigation
Park to Playa Trail: Stone Center
to Overlook Segment

Culver City, CA
Park to Playa Trail: Stone Center
to Overlook Segment

Culver City, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: County of Los Angeles
Contract Amount: $110,000
Completed: 2018

PROJECT SUMMARY
•Construction of the Martin Luther King
memorial grove portion of the Park to Playa
project- including manufacturing and
installation of the obelisk
•Site amenities including the seating, boulders,
and engraving of boulders
MLK Memorial Project

Culver City, CA
MLK Memorial Project

Temecula, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: Rancho California Water District
Contract Amount: $3,000,000
Completed: 2019

PROJECT SUMMARY
•Demolition and disposal of existing surface
debris, polypropylene, geotextile liners,
reinforced concrete.
•Pond surface preparation, grading, excavation.
•Install reinforced geomembrane and geotextile
along the slopes and bottom of Pond.
•Construct reinforced concrete dewatering sump,
fiberglass grating, liner anchorage and related
work.

Recycled Water Storage Pond
Relining, Pond No. 1/2

Hollywood, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: Los Angeles County –Public Works
Contract Amount: $3,654,000
Completed: 2023

PROJECT SUMMARY
•Replace existing slide gate, upgrade mechanical,
electrical and control systems
•Construct a new control house within the Pan Pacific
Retention Basin in LA City
Pan Pacific Retention Basin
Diversion Gate & Control House
Upgrade

West Hollywood, CA
Pan Pacific Retention Basin
Diversion Gate & Control House
Upgrade

El Monte, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: County of Los Angeles
Contract Amount: $2,716,00
Completed: 2023

PROJECT SUMMARY
•Removal of an existing Valley Rubber Dam#3
measuring 8’ india by 450’ in length,
•Supplying and installation of a new rubber dam and
materials
•Concrete foundation preparation, construction joint
repairs, cleaning and testing of dam
Removal & Replacement Valley
Rubber Dam #3
Duarte, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: County of Los Angeles, Dept of Public Works
Contract Amount: $1,400,000
Completed: 2014

PROJECT SUMMARY
•Demolition of existing concrete channel, reconstruct
reinforced concrete channel
•Construct rubber dam and control house
•Modified diversion structure, slides gates, operational platform, structural steel catwalk, RCP pipes and
fittings, structural and site concrete, asphalt, concrete outlets, riprap, electrical.

Live Oak Spreading Grounds
Improvements

Huntington Beach, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA)
Contract Amount: $1,980,000
Completed: 2015

PROJECT SUMMARY
•Construct additional parking at the Golden West
Transportation Center.
•Construct 57’x97’ Storm Water underground concrete
vault, excavate to 20’ deep, shoring, sump pumps,
mechanical.
•Site grading, flat concrete, asphalt, landscape, site
demolition, electrical
Construction of Additional
Parking at Golden west
Transportation Center
Huntington Beach, CA
Construction of Additional
Parking at Golden west
Transportation Center

Carson, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: County Sanitation District of Los Angeles
Contract Amount: $3,700,000
Completed: 2019

PROJECT SUMMARY
•Demo existing Digestion Tank KLM, ancillary facilities, residuals within tanks, mechanical piping, equipment,
reinforced concrete structures.
•Relocation of existing yard piping and electrical
equipment.
•Backfill to match existing grade.

Joint Water Pollution Control
Plant Demolition of Digestion
Tanks MLK

Carson, CA
Joint Water Pollution Control
Plant Demolition of Digestion
Tanks MLK

Buena Park, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: City of Buena Park - Public Works
Contract Amount: $163,630
Completed: 2020

PROJECT SUMMARY
•The memorial was created and dedicated to honor
Buena Park’s Fallen officers.
•It includes excavation, concrete work, memorial
monument installation with lights and landscape
PD Fallen Officer Memorial
Project

Calabasas, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: Las Virgenes Metropolitan Water District
Contract Amount: $1,500,000
Completed: 2019

PROJECT SUMMARY
•New glass-lined centrate storage tank with volume of
480,000 gallons, tank mixing equipment, valves,
instrumentation, and associated tank accessories.
•New access road and tank site, excavation, grading,
paving.
•New pipes, fittings to tie-in to existing centrate lines for filling and draining the storage tank.
•New electrical panels, PLC, equipment.
•New dry weather diversion structure.
•Site drainage system including concrete swale, gutters and storm drains.

Rancho LasVirgenesCentrate
Storage Tank Construction

Calabasas, CA
Rancho LasVirgenesCentrate
Storage Tank Construction

Ventura, CA

PROJECT SUMMARY
Agency: County of Ventura
Contract Amount: $625,000
Completed: 2017

PROJECT SUMMARY
•Repair of damaged levee slope of Conejo Creek.
•Removal undermined riprap revetment and place
new revetment material.
•Remove and replace deficient bank lining,
excavation, rock riprap, compacted backfill, water
pollution & diversion control, removal water,
shoring
Conejo Creek Maintenance

Ventura, CA
Conejo Creek Maintenance

Lara Sass, President
Ms. Sass has 40 years of heavy-civil and marine construction experience. Ms. Sass is responsible for estimating, scheduling, project control, and administration for environmental, mass- excavation/grading, marine public, and private work projects.

She is experienced in estimating, negotiation, and
performance of large and small contracts and subcontracts, including hard-dollar, and design-build contracts for
government agencies and private clients.

Misha Fyodorov, CEO & General Manager
Mr. Misha Fyodorov has 40 years of heavy-civil construction experience encompassing all aspects of construction project execution. Mr. Fyodorov is responsible for overall company performance including estimating, construction management, procurement and contract administration, safety program, equipment management, hiring and employee training. Mr.

Fyodorov supervises multiple, complex, medium and large- scale projects involving hundreds of craft labor, several project managers, project engineers and field superintendents. As a Project Manager, Mr. Fyodorov has a proven record in
managing complex government, municipal and private work including construction of bridges, highways, airport, marine, landfills, flood control, mass excavation, pipe-line, mechanical, and remediation projects in the Western United States.

O U R T E A M L E A D E R S

Antonio Zori, Senior Project Manager
Mr. Antonio Zori is a results-oriented professional with over 25 years of experience in construction management and direction of different types of complex projects (public and private contracts). Specialist in increasing profits, reducing expenses and execution time using different construction methods and value engineering, maintaining the quality and scope of project. Highly qualified in analyzing production and deviation costs, scheduling optimization, team management and successful negotiation with clients and subcontractors.

Anton Fyodorov, General Project Manager
With 18 years of heavy-civil construction experience, Mr. Anton Fyodorov oversees company performance, managing various aspects such as estimating, construction, procurement, safety, equipment, hiring, and training. He leads multiple large-scale projects, demonstrating expertise in government, municipal, and private construction, covering bridges, highways, airports, marine structures, landfills, flood control, mass excavation, pipelines, mechanical, and remediation projects in the Western United States.

O U R T E A M L E A D E R S

C O N S T U C T I O NE N G I N E E R I N G
Zusser has construction-focused engineering, providing seamless solutions that smoothly translate blueprints into completed projects.

DIGITIAL DESIGN DRAWINGS (2D & 3D)
Zusser utilizes a range of advanced heavy-civil design software to produce both 2D and 3D designs and drawings specifically tailored for construction applications. This enables us to employ sophisticated tools and technologies to enhance the precision and effectiveness of our design processes.

Zusser forwards its finalized designs to field crews for seamless implementation and to material suppliers and fabricators to ensure precise construction and manufacturing processes. This streamlined communication and distribution of design information facilitate accurate and efficient execution in both construction and fabrication phases.

EARTH WORK CALCULATIONS & OPTIMIZATION
Zusser employs specialized software to accurately calculate earthwork quantities, focusing on efficiently managing the import and export of soil and determining the optimal haul routes on construction sites. This dedicated software ensures precise earthwork planning and enhances overall project efficiency.

C O N S T U R U C T I O N S U R V E Y I N G
Zusser is equipped with cutting-edge, in-house construction survey equipment that plays a pivotal role in ensuring accuracy and efficiency throughout the construction process. This advanced equipment serves various purposes:

Site Investigation: Prior to commencing a construction project, Zusser can examine the site to gather crucial information about topography, soil conditions, drainage patterns, and existing structures.

Staking and Layout: Zusser is able establish and mark critical reference points on the site, including property boundaries, building corners, and utility locations.

Monitoring and Verification: Throughout the construction process, Zusser continuously checks on the position, elevation, and alignment of structures are conducted to promptly identify and rectify any deviations.

As-Built Surveying: Upon project completion, Zusser can conduct a final survey to document the finished works, creating an as-built record.

By leveraging state-of-the-art survey equipment such as Drone Mapping and our Trimble GPS/ GNSS system, Zusser ensures that precise measurements and spatial data guide decision-making, minimize errors, and uphold quality control from project initiation to completion.

474847.3 1

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

ALEXANDER B. CVITAN (SBN 81746)
E-mail: [email protected]
MARSHA M. HAMASAKI (SBN 102720)
E-mail: [email protected]
PETER A. HUTCHINSON (SBN 225399)
E-mail: [email protected]
REICH, ADELL & CVITAN, A Professional Law Corporation
3550 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2000
Los Angeles, California 90010-2421
Telephone: (213) 386-3860; Facsimile: (213) 386-5583
Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CONSTRUCTION LABORERS

TRUST FUNDS FOR SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE
COMPANY, a Delaware limited
liability company,

Plaintiff,

NATIONWIDE CONTRACTING
SERVICES, INC, a California
corporation doing business as

NATIONWIDE GENERAL

CONSTRUCTION SERVICES,

Defendant.

CASE NO.:

COMPLAINT FOR:

1. MONETARY DAMAGES DUE TO

EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS

2. SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF

OBLIGATION TO PRODUCE

RECORDS FOR AUDIT

[29 U.S.C. §§ 185, 1132(a)(3),
1132(g)(2) and 1145]

Plaintiff, Construction Laborers Trust Funds for Southern California Administrative Company, a Delaware limited liability company, alleges:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action is brought by a fiduciary administrator on behalf of employee benefit plans against an employer. It is brought to enforce of the terms of Case 8:23-cv-00521 Document 1 Filed 03/22/23 Page 1 of 13 Page ID #:1

474847.3 2

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
collective bargaining agreements and plan trust agreements to: (a) recover fringe benefit contributions and related damages due by the employer on behalf of its employees (Claim 1); and (b) compel the employer to fully produce its records for audit to determine if additional amounts are due (Claim 2). This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to: sections 502(g)(2) and 515 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(g)(2) and 1145; section 502(a)(3) of ERISA, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3); and section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185. Pursuant to ERISA section 502(e)(2), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2), venue is proper in this district for each of the following reasons: the plans are administered in this district; the employer's performance and breach took place in this district; and the employer resides or may be found in this district.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff ("CLTF") is an administrator of, agent for collection for, a fiduciary to, and brings this action on behalf of the following employee benefit plans: Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Southern California; Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California; Laborers Annuity Plan for Southern California; Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California; Laborers Training and Re-Training Trust Fund for Southern California; Fund for Construction Industry Advancement; Center for Contract Compliance; Laborers Contract Administration Trust Fund for Southern California; Laborers' Trusts Administrative Trust Fund for Southern California; and Southern California Partnership for Jobs Trust Fund (collectively "Trust Funds"). The Trust Funds are express trusts created by written agreements; employee benefit plans within the meaning of ERISA section 3(3), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(3); and multi-employer plans within the meaning of ERISA section 3(37)(A), 29 U.S.C. § 1002(37)(A). The Trust Case 8:23-cv-00521 Document 1 Filed 03/22/23 Page 2 of 13 Page ID #:2

474847.3 3

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Funds exist pursuant to ERISA and LMRA section 302, 29 U.S.C. § 186. CLTF and the Trust Funds' principal places of business are in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

3. CLTF is a fiduciary as to the Trust Funds in that it:

a. Exercises discretionary authority or discretionary control with respect to the collection of delinquent (or possibly delinquent) fringe benefit contributions due to the Trust Funds, including but not limited to discretion in auditing employers, deciding what claims to assert, acting as agent of the Trust Funds in asserting claims, waiving liquidated damages, settling claims, and releasing claims; and

b. Exercises authority or control with respect to management or disposition of assets of the Trust Funds, including but not limited to receiving delinquent contributions collected and holding them in a bank account in its own name over which it has check-writing authority, and then exercising discretion in allocating those assets among the different Trust Funds, different participants, different time-periods and different jobs.

4. CLTF is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that defendant Nationwide Contracting Services, Inc (“Employer”) is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California that does business as Nationwide General Construction Services; has a principal place of business in the City of Fountain Valley, County of Orange, State of California; and does, or at all relevant times did, business in the State of California as a construction contractor in an industry affecting interstate commerce.

Case 8:23-cv-00521 Document 1 Filed 03/22/23 Page 3 of 13 Page ID #:3

474847.3 4

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

AGREEMENTS

5. Various public entities in Southern California have entered into project labor agreements (also known a project stabilization agreements, continuity of work agreements, and community workforce agreements) with unions and employer associations establishing terms and conditions of work on public works projects. In each case, by, and as a condition of, performing work on such a project, contractors must abide by the terms of the applicable project labor agreement, including terms related to the payment of employee wages and fringe benefits. The Employer has performed work on such public works projects, including at least those of the Los Angeles Unified School District (governed by the Los Angeles Unified School District Project Stabilization Agreement) and the City of Santa Ana (governed by the City of Santa Ana Community Workforce Agreement). Many project labor agreements, including the two listed above in this paragraph (referenced herein together as “Project Labor Agreements”), are signed by the Laborers Union and other labor unions (as parties to the agreement) and incorporate the unions’ respective collective bargaining agreements by reference. The Laborers Union collective bargaining agreements, which are among those incorporated by reference into the Project Labor Agreements, are known as the Construction Master Labor Agreements, including one known as the Southern California Master Labor Agreement. In addition to working under project labor agreements, the Employer executed a collective bargaining agreement with the Laborers Union binding it directly to the Construction Master Labor Agreements for work on one or more specific projects, including one for work on a project of the City of Santa Barbara known as the Central Library Renovation project (“Santa Barbara Public Works Project Agreement”). The Los Angeles Unified School District Project Stabilization Agreement, City of Santa Ana Community Workforce Agreement, Santa Barbara Public Works Project Agreement, and any other agreement binding the Employer to Case 8:23-cv-00521 Document 1 Filed 03/22/23 Page 4 of 13 Page ID #:4

474847.3 5

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
the Construction Master Labor Agreements, as well as the Construction Master Labor Agreements themselves, are identified as the “Collective Bargaining Agreements” where referenced collectively hereinafter.

6. Pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreements, employers become – and the Employer became and is – bound to the terms and conditions of the various trust agreements that created each of the Trust Funds ("Trust Agreements"). When referenced collectively hereinafter, the Collective Bargaining Agreements and Trust Agreements are referred to as "the Agreements."

7. Under the terms of the Agreements, employers, including the Employer, are required to submit monthly fringe benefit contributions ("Monthly Contributions") to the Trust Funds for all hours worked by (or paid for) their employees who perform work covered by the Agreements ("Covered Work").

8. Under the terms of the Agreements, employers, including the Employer, are required to submit to the Trust Funds, with their Monthly Contributions, monthly reports, itemized by project, listing the names of their employees who performed Covered Work, their Social Security numbers, the hours of work performed by (or paid for) each, and the resulting Monthly Contributions due for them ("Monthly Reports"). The Trust Funds rely on Monthly Reports – and the accuracy of those reports – to determine the amount of Monthly Contributions due to the Trust Funds by employers and the credit toward fringe benefits to be allocated to their employees.

9. The Agreements provide for the payment of interest on delinquent Monthly Contributions from the date due at a rate set by the trustees of the Trust Funds. The trustees have set that rate at five percent (5%) above the prime rate set Case 8:23-cv-00521 Document 1 Filed 03/22/23 Page 5 of 13 Page ID #:5

474847.3 6

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
by the Federal Reserve Board of San Francisco, California. The Agreements also provide for the payment of liquidated damages for each month of delinquent Monthly Contributions or Monthly Reports, for each Trust Fund separately, in the amount of twenty percent (20%) of the delinquent Monthly Contributions due to the Trust Fund or $25, whichever is greater (except with respect to the Laborers Contract Administration Trust Fund for Southern California, which assesses liquidated damages at the greater of $20 or ten percent (10%)). In addition, employers are required to pay fees for the submission of dishonored checks.

10. The failure of employers to pay Monthly Contributions when due causes damages to the Trust Funds and its participants beyond the value of the unpaid Monthly Contributions, which are difficult to quantify. Apart from the fees and costs incurred in litigation, the harm caused includes, but is not limited to, the administrative costs of processing and collecting delinquencies, the costs of adjusting benefit credits and notifying participants, the additional burden placed on contractors who faithfully pay their contributions, and the burden upon participants and beneficiaries who may be unable to qualify for benefits they may have otherwise been entitled to had it not been for the delinquency of their employer. The liquidated damages provision of the Agreements was meant to compensate for the loss to the Trust Funds, which is incurred even if the Monthly Contributions for a given month are later paid. It is based on the Trust Funds' ratio of collection costs over amounts collected, which are regularly reported to the Trust Funds' trustees.

11. Under the terms of the Agreements, employers, including the Employer, agree to subcontract Covered Work only to entities that are signatory to a Construction Master Labor Agreement applicable to the work performed. If an employer subcontracts Covered Work to a non-signatory entity, the employer becomes liable to the Trust Funds in an amount equal to the Monthly Contribution s Case 8:23-cv-00521 Document 1 Filed 03/22/23 Page 6 of 13 Page ID #:6

474847.3 7

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
that would have been due if the entity had been signatory (plus interest, liquidated damages and audit fees thereon).

12. Under the terms of the Agreements, employers, including the Employer, agree not to subcontract Covered Work to entities that are delinquent to the Trust Funds. If an employer subcontracts Covered Work to such an entity the employer becomes under the terms of the Agreements liable to the Trust Funds for the Monthly Contributions due by the subcontractor and any lower-tier subcontractors.

13. The Agreements provide the Trust Funds with specific authority to examine the payroll and business records of employers, including the Employer, to determine whether they have reported all hours worked by (or paid for) their employees who perform Covered Work, and whether they have paid the appropriate Monthly Contributions and other amounts due by them to the Trust Funds. The Agreements further provide that employers, including the Employer, must maintain records sufficient for the Trust Funds to verify proper Monthly Reporting, and, where there has been inaccurate Monthly Reporting, to determine the additional amounts due, and that the employer must pay the Trust Funds' audit fees if it is delinquent to the Trust Funds. The Trust Funds have delegated the authority to perform such audits to CLTF.

14. The Agreements require employers to pay the Trust Funds' attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation to enforce the Agreements' foregoing terms, including the Monthly Contribution, Monthly Reporting, subcontracting and audit provisions. ///
///
///
///
Case 8:23-cv-00521 Document 1 Filed 03/22/23 Page 7 of 13 Page ID #:7

474847.3 8

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
For Monetary Damages Due to Employee Benefit Plans
[29 U.S.C. §§ 185, 1132(g)(2) and 1145]

15. CLTF repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 14 above as if fully set forth here.

16. The Employer has failed to timely submit Monthly Contributions due by it to the Trust Funds. Pursuant to the Agreements and ERISA sections 502(g)(2) and 515, 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(g)(2) and 1145, the Employer owes the Trust Funds a known amount of $76,908.33 for unpaid or late-paid Monthly Contributions and related damages (and/or late-submitted Monthly Reports) for some or all of the months of December 2018 through September 2021 (“Known Delinquency”). The Known Delinquency consists of: $53,798.66 in unpaid Monthly Contributions; $9,122.50 in interest through March 6, 2023; $13,667.17 in liquidated damages; and $320.00 in audit fees.

17. CLTF will establish by proof at the time of trial or through dispositive motion the Known Delinquency and any additional amounts determined to be due to the Trust Funds by the Employer, including any additional Monthly Contributions, interest, liquidated damages, audit fees, fees for the submission of checks not honored by the bank upon which they were drawn, attorneys’ fees and costs, and amounts owed as a result of work performed by subcontractors of the Employer (or lower-tier subcontractors). If deemed necessary by the Court, CLTF will amend its complaint to add any additional amounts determined to be due. Any and all conditions to the Employer’s obligations under the Agreements to pay the Known Delinquency and any additional amounts due under the Agreements to the Trust Funds have been met.

Case 8:23-cv-00521 Document 1 Filed 03/22/23 Page 8 of 13 Page ID #:8

474847.3 9

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

18. A portion of the Known Delinquency, including all of the amounts due for months during the period December 2018 through November 2019 (and a portion of amounts due for subsequent months), was discovered to be due a review of Employer records produced in response to a request by CLTF for it to submit to an audit, the first of which were received by CLTF in January 2021. Sufficient records were not produced for the audit to be completed. A partial audit was completed in April 2022.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
For Specific Performance of Obligation to Produce Records for Audit [29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(3) and 1132(g)(2)(E)]

19. CLTF repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 18 above as if fully set forth here.

20. CLTF has requested that the Employer produce its records for audit.

The Employer has failed to fully produce its records for audit. CLTF requests that the Court exercise its authority under ERISA sections 502(a)(3) and (g)(2)(E), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(3) and (g)(2)(E), to order the Employer to comply with its obligation under the Agreements and ERISA to fully produce its books and records in order for CLTF to complete an audit to determine if additional amounts are due.

21. An award of attorneys’ fees and costs is provided for by Agreements and under ERISA sections 502(g)(1) and/or (g)(2), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) and/or (g)(2). ///
///
///
///
Case 8:23-cv-00521 Document 1 Filed 03/22/23 Page 9 of 13 Page ID #:9

474847.3 10

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
WHEREFORE, CLTF prays for judgment as follows:

ON CLTF'S FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[For Monetary Damages Due to Employee Benefit Plans]

A. For $53,798.66 in unpaid Monthly Contributions, as required by the Agreements and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(A).

B. For $9,122.50 in interest through March 6, 2023 on unpaid or late paid Monthly Contributions at the rate of five percent above the variable prime rate set by the Federal Reserve Board of San Francisco, California, plus such additional interest that has or does hereafter accrue from March 6, 2023, as required by the Agreements and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(B).

C. For $13,667.17 in liquidated damages for unpaid and late-paid Monthly Contributions at, for each of the Trust Funds separately, the greater of 20% or $25 (except with respect to the Laborers Contract Administration Trust Fund for Southern California, for which liquidated damages are sought at the greater 10% or $20), as required by the Agreements and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(C).

D. For $320.00 in audit fees, as required by the Agreements and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(E).

E. For, according to proof, any additional Monthly Contributions, interest, liquidated damages, audit fees, insufficient funds check fees, and amounts owed as a result work performed by any subcontractors of the Employer (or lower-tier subcontractors) determined to be due, pursuant to the Agreements and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(g)(2) and 1145.

Case 8:23-cv-00521 Document 1 Filed 03/22/23 Page 10 of 13 Page ID #:10

474847.3 11

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
F. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, as required by the Agreements and 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(2)(D).

G. For such other relief that this Court deems appropriate, pursuant to any authority of the Court, including but not limited to the authority established by 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(g)(2)(E) and 1132(a)(3).

ON CLTF'S SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
[For Specific Performance of Obligation to Produce Records for Audit]

A. For the issuance of injunctive relief pursuant to the Agreements and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(g)(2)(E) and/or 1132(a)(3) ordering the Employer and its managing officers, managing employees, agents and successors, as well as all those in active concert or participation with any one or more of them, to submit to an audit of the Employer’s records from at least December 1, 2018 forward, to fully cooperate with CLTF with respect to the audit in order for CLTF to determine the total amount due to the Trust Funds by the Employer, and, specifically, to produce to CLTF the following payroll and business records – and any other records determined by CLTF to be necessary to conduct a full audit – for inspection, examination and copying:

A.1. All of the Employer’s payroll and employee records, as well as any other records that might be relevant to a determination of the work performed by the Employer, its employees, its subcontractors, its lower-tier subcontractors and the employees of the Employer’s subcontractors and lower-tier subcontractors, including but not limited to payroll journals, employee earnings records, certified payroll records, payroll check books and stubs, cancelled payroll checks, payroll time cards and state and federal tax returns (and all other state and federal tax records), as well Case 8:23-cv-00521 Document 1 Filed 03/22/23 Page 11 of 13 Page ID #:11

474847.3 12

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
as labor distribution journals and any other records that might be relevant to an identification of the employees who performed work for the Employer, its subcontractors or lower-tier subcontractors, or which might be relevant to a determination of the projects on which the Employer, its employees, its subcontractors, lower-tier subcontractors or the employees of its subcontractors or lower-tier subcontractors performed work, including any records that provide the names, addresses, Social Security numbers, job classification or the number of hours worked by any one or more employee;

A.2. All of the Employer’s job files for each contract, project or job on which the Employer, its employees, its subcontractors, its lower-tier subcontractors or the employees of its subcontractors or lower-tier subcontractors worked, including but not limited to all correspondence, agreements and contracts between the Employer and any general contractor, subcontractor, owner, builder or developer, as well as all field records, job records, notices, project logs, supervisors' diaries and notes, employees' diaries and notes, memoranda, releases and any other records that relate to the supervision of the Employer’s employees, its subcontractors, its lower- tier subcontractors or the employees of its subcontractors and lower-tier subcontractors, or the projects on which the Employer, its employees, its subcontractors, its lower-tier subcontractors or the employees of its subcontractors or lower-tier subcontractors performed work;

A.3. All of the Employer’s records related to cash receipts, including but not limited to the Employer’s cash receipts journals, accounts receivable journals, accounts receivable subsidiary ledgers and billing invoices for all contracts, projects and jobs on which the Employer, its employees, its subcontractors, its lower-tier subcontractors or the employees of its subcontractors or lower-tier subcontractors performed work;
Case 8:23-cv-00521 Document 1 Filed 03/22/23 Page 12 of 13 Page ID #:12

474847.3 13

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
A.4. All of the Employer’s bank statements, including but not limited to those for all checking, savings and investment accounts;

A.5. All of the Employer’s records related to disbursements, including but not limited to vendors' invoices, cash disbursement journals, accounts payable journals, check registers and all other records which indicate disbursements;

A.6. All collective bargaining agreements between the Employer and any trade union, and all records of contributions by the Employer to any trade union trust fund; and

A.7. All records related to the formation, licensing, renewal or operation of the Employer.

B. For reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, as required by the Agreements and provided for under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(g)(1) and/or (g)(2).

C. For such other relief that this Court deems appropriate, pursuant to any authority of the Court, including but not limited to the authority established by 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(g)(2)(E) and 1132 (a)(3).

DATED: March 21, 2023 REICH, ADELL & CVITAN
A Professional Law Corporation

By: /s/ Peter A. Hutchinson
PETER A. HUTCHINSON
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 8:23-cv-00521 Document 1 Filed 03/22/23 Page 13 of 13 Page ID #:13 - 1 -

COMPLAINT FOR MONEY
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH J. FREED
KENNETH J. FREED, ESQ. [SBN. 125349]
JOSEPH JYOO, ESQ. [SBN. 321286]
4340 Fulton Ave., Third Floor
Sherman Oaks, California 91423
(818) 990-0888
(818) 990-1047 Facsimile
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC.

Our File No. 6085481

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE

CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER, UNLIMITED CIVIL

CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC.,
Plaintiff(s),
vs.

NATIONWIDE CONTRACTING SERVICES,

INC AKA NATIONWIDE CONTRACTING

SERVICES INC AKA NATIONWIDE
CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC. DBA

NATIONWIDE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.:

COMPLAINT FOR MONEY
(Insurance Premiums)

1. BREACH OF CONTRACT

2. OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT

3. ACCOUNT STATED

4. REASONABLE VALUE

AMOUNT OF DEMAND
$140,714.83

Plaintiff, on information and belief, alleges as follows:

DEFINITIONS AND PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

1. As used herein, the term "Plaintiff's Assignor" refers to STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND.

2. As used herein, the term "Debt" refers to the sum of $140,714.83 for Policy No. 9240973-

20. 3. As used herein, the term "Due Date" refers to May 27, 2022.

4. Plaintiff's Assignor is a corporation and an insurance issuer and underwriter, licensed under the laws of the State of California. Prior to the commencement of this action, the claims herein sued upon Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 12/09/2022 12:32:38 PM. 30-2022-01296113-CU-BC-NJC - ROA # 2 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By Y. Ramirez, Deputy Clerk.

- 2 -

COMPLAINT FOR MONEY
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
were assigned to Plaintiff by Plaintiff's Assignor for collection purposes only and Plaintiff, as assignee, has not accepted any of the obligations, debts or liabilities of Plaintiff’s Assignor.

5. Plaintiff is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and is a collection agency.

6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of the Defendants herein designated DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will ask leave of the Court to amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities when ascertained.

7. The obligation and claims sued upon herein were made and entered into and are due and payable in the above-mentioned Judicial District and County, State of California, and are not subject to the provisions of Sections 1812.10 and 2984.4 of the California Civil Code and Section 395(b) of the California Civil Code of Procedure.

8. At all times herein mentioned, the Defendants were agents and employees of the other Defendants and were acting within the course and scope of such agency and employment.

9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each Defendant is and at all times herein mentioned was, an alter ego and/or successor in interest of each other Defendant, in order to perpetrate a fraud and to accomplish other wrongful and inequitable purposes, such that the Court must disregard the separate entities and treat each entities’ acts as set forth herein as if they were done by each of these named Defendants.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF CONTRACT)
(Against All Defendants; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive)

10. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 9 as though fully set forth herein.

11. Plaintiff’s Assignor and Defendants entered into a written agreement wherein Plaintiff’s Assignor agreed to provide a policy of workers compensation insurance to the Defendants, bearing Policy No. 9240973-20 (covering the period of November 3, 2020 through November 3, 2021) and Defendants agreed to pay premiums in accordance with the terms and conditions of said policy which provided for payment of premiums.

12. Said Defendants accepted said workers compensation insurance policy bearing Policy No. - 3 -

COMPLAINT FOR MONEY
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
9240973-20, and, in consideration thereof, agreed to the terms and conditions set forth therein which provided payment of premiums.

13. Plaintiff’s Assignor has performed everything on its part to be performed under said insurance policy.

14. Defendants breached that part of Policy No. 9240973-20 requiring the payment of the premium assessed by Plaintiff’s Assignor at the conclusion of Policy No. 9240973-20 in the amount of $140,714.83. Said balance has not been paid although payment has been demanded, and there is now due, owing and unpaid from the Defendants to Plaintiff said Debt, together with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum since demanded on the Due Date as set forth in Paragraph 3 herein.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT)
(Against All Defendants; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive)

15. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 9 as though fully set forth herein.

16. Within four years preceding the commencement of this action, Defendants, and each of them, became indebted to Plaintiff’s Assignor in the amount of the Debt for a balance due on an open book account for goods sold and delivered and/or services rendered by Plaintiff’s Assignor to Defendants at Defendants’ request. Said Debt has not been paid although payment has been demanded, and said Debt is now due, owing and unpaid, together with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum since demanded on the Due Date.

17. The Debt sued upon herein was incurred on or after January 1, 1987 and is subject to the provisions of the California Civil Code Section 1717.5 and that Plaintiff is entitled to be awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to said section.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (ACCOUNT STATED)
(Against All Defendants; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive)

18. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 9 as though fully set forth herein.

19. Within four years preceding the commencement of this action, an account was stated by and between Plaintiff’s Assignor and Defendants, and each of them, wherein it was ascertained and agreed - 4 -

COMPLAINT FOR MONEY
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
that said Defendants owed said Debt to Plaintiff’s Assignor together with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the Due Date.

20. The Debt sued upon herein was incurred on or after January 1, 1987 and is subject to the provisions of the California Civil Code Section 1717.5 and that Plaintiff is entitled to be awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to said section.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (REASONABLE VALUE)
(Against All Defendants; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive)

21. Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 9 as though fully set forth herein.

22. Within two years preceding the commencement of this action Defendants, and each of them, became indebted to Plaintiff’s Assignor for the reasonable value of goods sold and delivered and/or services rendered by Plaintiff’s Assignor to said Defendants’ request, the Debt was and is the reasonable value of said goods, and/or services. No part of said Debt has been paid although payment has been demanded, and said Debt is now due, owing and unpaid, together with interest at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum since demanded on the Due Date.

23. The Debt sued upon herein was incurred on or after January 1, 1987 and is subject to the provisions of the California Civil Code Section 1717.5 and that Plaintiff is entitled to be awarded attorney’s fees pursuant to said section.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants and each of them, as follows:

AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

1. As to Policy No. 9240973-20, for a sum of $140,714.83 together with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from May 27, 2022;

2. For costs of suit herein; and

3. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

AS TO THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION

1. As to Policy No. 9240973-20, for a sum of $140,714.83 together with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from May 27, 2022;

2. For costs of suit incurred herein;
- 5 -

COMPLAINT FOR MONEY
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

3. For attorney’s fees pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1717.5; and

4. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DATED: December
, 2022 LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH J. FREED
BY: ______________________________________
JOSEPH JYOO, ESQ.

Attorneys for Plaintiff
CREDITORS ADJUSTMENT BUREAU, INC.
[Electronic Signature per C.R.C. 2.257(a)]
8 - 1 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC
555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150
C OSTA M ESA CA 92626
TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709
Chri
stopher M. Engels, Esq (Bar No. 304855)
Sean B. Janzen, Esq. (Bar No. 293246)

ENGELS LAW APC
555 Anton Blvd, Suite 150
Costa Mesa CA 92626
(949) 269-7709
[email protected]
[email protected]
Att
orneys for Plaintiffs Alex Song and Traci Doan,
individually and as Trustees of Song Doan Nevada Trust
SUPE

RIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE, NORTH JUSTICE CENTER
ALEX SONG, an individual, TRACI DOAN,
an individual; ALEX SONG and TRACI
DOAN as Trustees of SONG DOAN

NEVADA TRUST,
Plaintif fs,
vs.

NATIONWIDE CONTRACTING
SERVICES, INC., D.B.A. NATIONWIDE
GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, a
California Corporation; ELIE NADER, an
individual; HUDSON INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation;
CHARLIE PLUMBING, an unknown business
entity; MD CUSTOM WOOD WORK, an
unknown business entity; SPECIALIZED
FIRE PROTECTION, INC., a California
Corporation; THOMAS STEWART dba TBS
CONSTRUCTION, a Sole Proprietorship;
NAVIGATORS INSURANCE COMPANY, a
New York Corporation; CAL PRIME
STRUCTURES, INC., a California
Corporation dba CAL PRIME GLASS AND
MIRROR; BUSINESS ALLIANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a California
Corporation; ARCE ELECTRIC, a California
Corporation; AMERICAN CONTRACTORS
INDEMNITY COMPANY, a California
Corporation; REGAL INTERIOR, INC., a
California Corporation dba REGAL
PLASTERING; RG DECK COATING, INC.,
Lead Case No:
30-2023-01326343-CU-BC-NJC
Consol
idated with Case No:
30-2023-01335746-CU-BC-CJC
FIRS

T AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

DAMAGES

1. Vio
lation of Building Standards
Civil Code §§ 896 and 897

2. Negligence

3. Breach of Implied Warranty

4. Breach of Express Warranty

5. Breach of Contract

6. Intentional Misrepresentation -
Fraud

7. Conversion

8. Violation of Business and
Professionals Code §7164

9. Violation of Business and
Professionals Code §7031

10. Action on Surety Bond Business &
Professions Code § 7071.5

11. Action to Expunge Mechanic’s Lien
Civil Code § 3118
Electronically Filed by Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 08/22/2023 05:23:00 PM. 30-2023-01326343-CU-BC-NJC - ROA # 47 - DAVID H. YAMASAKI, Clerk of the Court By R. Baker, Deputy Clerk.

- 2 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

a California Corporation; DON R. WEILER,
an individual; MICROBIAL SOLUTIONS,
INC., a California Corporation dba OC
DECKS; CALIFORNIA CUSTOM LIFT,
INC., a California Corporation; THE OHIO
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a
New Hampshire Corporation; SO CAL
ROLLING SHUTTER, LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; SURETEC
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Texas
Corporation; ANDREW SMITH, an
individual; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,

Defendants.
______________________________________

AND ALL RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

PLAINTIFF ALEX SONG demands a jury trial and complains of Defendants and each of them, as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff ALEX SONG (“SONG”) is an individual residing in the County of Orange, California.

2. Plaintiff TRACI DOAN (“DOAN”) an individual residing in the County of Orange, California

3. Plaintiff ALEX SONG and TRACI DOAN are Trustees of SONG DOAN NEVADA TRUST (“SONG DOAN TRUST”), and the owners of real property located at 204 2nd St., Huntington Beach, CA.

4. Plaintiffs hired NATIONWIDE CONTRACTING SERVICES, INC.

D.B.A. NATIONWIDE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES (“NATIONWIDE”), a California Corporation doing business in the City of Huntington Beach doing business under California Contractors State License Board License No. 1031246, to build new residential construction at 204 2nd St., Huntington Beach, CA, County of Orange, State of California (referred to herein as “PROJECT”).

5. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege that Defendant ELIE NADER (“NADER”), an individual, is and at all times

- 3 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

mentioned in this Complaint was the Responsible Managing Officer, CEO, and President of NATIONWIDE.

6. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege that at all times relevant, NADER was the alter ego of NATIONWIDE due to the fact that NADER failed to observe corporate formalities, disregarded the distinction between himself and the corporate defendant, and the corporate defendant was a mere shell and conduit for NADER’s affairs. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant, there was such a unity of interest and ownership between NADER and NATIONWIDE that the separate personalities of NATIONWIDE and NADER no longer exist. Further, it would sanction a fraud or promote injustice to uphold the corporate fiction of NATIONWIDE and not hold NADER personally liable for the misconduct he performed through the corporate entity defendant.

7. Defendant HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY (“HUDSON”) has
underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number 30026732 in the amount of $15,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant NATIONWIDE and/or NADER, License Number 1031246, and as such, assumed the liability of NATIONWIDE and/or NADER to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.

8. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant CHARLIE PLUMBING (“CHARLIE PLUMBING”) was an unknown business entity doing business in the County of Orange, California, who furnished work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

9. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant MD CUSTOM WOOD WORK (“MD”) was an unknown business entity doing business in the County of Orange, California, who furnished work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

10. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant SPECIALIZED FIRE PROTECTION, INC.

- 4 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

(“SPECIALIZED”) was a California Corporation doing business in the County of Orange, California, under California Contractors State License Board License No. 1005885, who furnished work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

11. Defendant HUDSON has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number 30006906 in the amount of $15,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant SPECIALIZED, License Number 1005885, and as such, assumed the liability of SPECIALIZED to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.

12. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant THOMAS STEWART dba TBS CONSTRUCTION (“TBS”) was a Sole Proprietor doing business in the County of Orange, California, under California Contractors State License Board License No. 1012469, who furnished work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

13. Defendant NAVIGATORS INSURANCE COMPANY (“NAVIGATORS”) has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number NAV00020338 in the amount of $15,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant TBS, License Number 1012469, and as such, assumed the liability of TBS to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.

14. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant CAL PRIME STRUCTURES, INC., dba CAL PRIME GLASS AND MIRROR (“CAL PRIME”) was a California Corporation doing business in the County of Orange, California, under California Contractors State License Board License No. 1075613, who furnished work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

15. Defendant BUSINESS ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY
(“BUSINESS ALLIANCE”) has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number G110413096471in the amount of $15,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant CAL PRIME, License Number

- 5 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

1075613, and as such, assumed the liability of CAL PRIME to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.

16. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant ARCE ELECTRIC (“ARCE”) was a California Corporation doing business in the County of Orange, California, under California Contractors State License Board License No. 977091, who furnished work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

17. Defendant AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY
(“AMERICAN”) has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number 100531324 in the amount of $15,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant ARCE, License Number 977091, and as such, assumed the liability of ARCE to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.

18. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant REGAL INTERIOR, INC., dba REGAL PLASTERING (“REGAL”) was a California Corporation doing business in the County of Orange, California, under California Contractors State License Board License No. 1000371, who furnished work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

19. Defendant BUSINESS ALLIANCE has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number G100513078379 the amount of $15,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant REGAL, License Number 1000371, and as such, assumed the liability of REGAL to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.

20. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant RG DECK COATING, INC. (“RG”) was a California Corporation doing business in the County of Orange, California, under California Contractors State License Board License No. 975675, who furnished work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

- 6 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

21. Defendant NAVIGATORS has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number NAV00015704 in the amount of $15,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant RG, License Number 975675, and as such, assumed the liability of RG to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.

22. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant DON R. WEILER (“WEILER”) was an individual doing business in the County of Orange, California, under California Contractors State License Board License No. 586459, who furnished work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

23. Defendant HUDSON has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number 30050713 in the amount of $15,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant WEILER, License Number 586459, and as such, assumed the liability of WEILER to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.

24. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant MICROBIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a California Corporation dba OC DECKS (“OC DECKS”) was a California Corporation doing business in the County of Orange, California, under California Contractors State License Board License No. 857286, who furnished work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

25. Defendant AMERICAN has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number SC1039338 in the amount of $25,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant OC DECKS, License Number 857286, and as such, assumed the liability of OC DECKS to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.

26. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant CALIFORNIA CUSTOM LIFT, INC.

- 7 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

(“CUSTOM LIFT”) was a California Corporation doing business in the County of Orange, California, under California Contractors State License Board License No. 417741, who furnished work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

27. Defendant THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY (“OHIO CASUALTY”) has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number 661161C in the amount of $15,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant CUSTOM LIFT, License Number 417741, and as such, assumed the liability of CUSTOM LIFT to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.

28. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant SO CAL ROLLING SHUTTER, LLC (“ROLLING SHUTTER”) was a California Limited Liability Company doing business in the County of Orange, California, under California Contractors State License Board License No. 9900221, who furnished work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

29. Defendant SURETEC INSURANCE COMPANY (“SURETEC”) has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number 143600 in the amount of $25,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant ROLLING SHUTTER, License Number 9900221, and as such, assumed the liability of ROLLING SHUTTER to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.

30. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant ANDREW SMITH (“SMITH”) was an individual who furnished insulation work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

31. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant DOE 1 (“DOE 1”) was an unknown business entity doing business in the County of Orange, California, who furnished HVAC work and/or materials on the PROJECT by and through an individual named “Moe.”

32. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant DOE 2 (“DOE 2”) was an unknown business

- 8 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

entity doing business in the County of Orange, California, who furnished stucco and/or lath work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

33. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant DOE 3 (“DOE 3”) was an unknown business entity doing business in the County of Orange, California, who furnished concrete work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

34. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant DOE 4 (“DOE 4”) was an unknown business entity doing business in the County of Orange, California, who furnished bathroom tile work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

35. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant DOE 5 (“DOE 5”) was an unknown business entity doing business in the County of Orange, California, who furnished flooring tile work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

36. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant DOE 6 (“DOE 6”) was an unknown business entity doing business in the County of Orange, California, who furnished countertop work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

37. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times relevant, Defendant DOE 7 (“DOE 7”) was an unknown business entity doing business in the County of Orange, California, who furnished outside tiling work and/or materials on the PROJECT.

38. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that Defendants DOES 51 through 100 are surety companies who have underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant DOES 1 through 25 and as such, assumed the liability of DOES 1 through 50 to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.

- 9 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

39. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, representative, or otherwise of DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are presently unknown to this Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendant by such fictions names, and Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names, and Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to insert the true names and capacities when they are ascertained.

40. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that at all times pled in this Complaint, Defendants and their agents and/or employees, and in doing the things alleged herein, Defendants were acting within the course and scope of their agency and/or employment.

41. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that each of the Defendants, NATIONWIDE, NADER, CHARLIE, MD,

SPECIALIZED, TBS CAL PRIME, ARCE, REGAL, RG, WEILER, OC DECKS, CUSTOM LIFT, ROLLING SHUTTER, SMITH and DOES 1 through 50 are legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and caused damage proximately thereby to the Plaintiff as alleged herein.

42. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege that NATIONWIDE, NADER, CHARLIE, MD, SPECIALIZED, TBS CAL

PRIME, ARCE, REGAL, RG, WEILER, OC DECKS, CUSTOM LIFT, ROLLING SHUTTER, SMITH and DOES 1 through 50 were contractors, sub-contractors, suppliers, architects, designers, engineers, surveyors, construction managers and other professional service providers for the PROJECT which is the subject of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

43. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that from the inception of the PROJECT’s construction, through the present date, Defendants maintained control and supervisory duties of all persons, entities, subcontractors or any other devise of installation.

44. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege, that from the start date of the PROJECT through the present date, Defendants

- 10 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

made inspections, investigations, concealed by temporary repairs, and did not reveal, disclose, or inform Plaintiffs of various building deficiencies and defective conditions of the PROJECT that were observed and/or discovered during inspections, investigations, and temporary repairs conducted by the Defendants and did not disclose budgetary deficiencies in the SONG budget and/or contract, and Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the implied and express representations by Defendants that the PROJECT was adequately reserved and free from building standard deficiencies, defective conditions, construction or design defects, premature and unreasonable deterioration of the improvements at the PROJECT and was constructed in accordance with applicable building standard.

45. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege that NATIONWIDE, NADER, CHARLIE, MD, SPECIALIZED, TBS CAL

PRIME, ARCE, REGAL, RG, WEILER, OC DECKS, CUSTOM LIFT, ROLLING SHUTTER, SMITH and DOES 1 through 50 willfully departed from accepted trade standards for good and workmanlike construction in violation of Business and Professions Code § 7109.

46. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege that each of the violations of residential building standards for the original construction alleged herein were timely alleged in compliance with the limitation periods prescribed in Civil Code §896 and 897.

47. During the construction of the PROJECT, Defendants promised, agreed to, and did make some repairs to the PROJECT, but failed to provide Plaintiffs with accurate and complete information about the repairs, assuring Plaintiffs that any and all building standard violations were incidental anomalies and not systematic and widespread, and concealing, either intentionally or negligently, the true conditions. In so doing, Plaintiffs reasonably relied on said promises, agreements and repairs and thereby deferred the filing of this action.

48. Pursuant to Civil Code § 896 and 897, SONG brings this action individually and on his own behalf for the damage to the PROJECT. Pursuant to said action, SONG

- 11 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

has standing to institute the instant action for the damages alleged herein in his own name as the real party in interest.

49. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege that Plaintiffs have sustained and suffered consequential damages resulting from Defendants’ acts and/or omissions, including, without limitation, loss of private property, improperly installed finishes, potential physical injury, unsatisfactory workmanship, code violations and fraud. Plaintiffs have or will incur expenses in connection with the repair and remediation of such defects and damages.

50. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege that NATIONWIDE and/or NADER are a BUILDER Defendant within the meaning of Civil Code §911(a) as NATIONWIDE and/or NADER was a builder, developer, general contractor, contractor, or original seller who at the time of sale was also in the business of remodeling or constructing residential units. As a result, NATIONWIDE and/or NADER is liable to SONG for violation of the building standards of residential construction enumerated in Civil Code §§896 and 897, et seq.

51. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege that NATIONWIDE (1) may not have had the RMO or RME in direct supervision of work as defined by Business and Professional codes §§ 7065-7077; (2) may not have been duly licensed as defined by Business and Professional codes §§ 7025-7034; and (3) may not have fulfilled the requirement of Business and Professional Code §7159. ///
///
///

- 12 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS
CIVIL CODE §§ 896 AND 897
(By SONG, DOAN, and SONG DOAN TRUST)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, CHARLIE, MD, SPECIALIZED, TBS CAL PRIME,

ARCE, REGAL, RG, WEILER, OC DECKS, CUSTOM LIFT, ROLLING SHUTTER, SMITH and DOES 1 through 50)

52. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this cause of action, the preceding paragraphs 1 through 51 of this Complaint.

53. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege that NATIONWIDE, NADER, CHARLIE, MD, SPECIALIZED, TBS CAL

PRIME, ARCE, REGAL, RG, WEILER, OC DECKS, CUSTOM LIFT, ROLLING SHUTTER, and SMITH provided services to the PROJECT as builder, general contractor, subcontractor, designer, consultant, and/or material suppliers, improved, supplied materials for, constructed, and/or remodeled the PROJECT.

54. The PROJECT was constructed in violation of the residential building standards set for in Civil Code §§ 896 and 897, including but not limited to the violations identified in “Exhibit A” to this complaint and incorporated herein by reference (the “building Standard Violations”). Plaintiffs’ investigation is continuing, and additional Building Standard Violations may be discovered as this action proceeds.

55. The Building Standard Violations existed at the time that Defendants demanded payment for said work performed in violation of Civil Code §§ 896 and 897.

56. As a direct and proximate result of the Building Standard Violations, Plaintiffs have sustained and will continue to sustain damages, for the value of repairing any violation of the standards set forth in this title, the reasonable cost of repairing any damages caused by the repair efforts, the reasonable cost of repairing and rectifying any damages resulting from the failure of the home to meet requisite standards, the reasonable cost of removing and replacing any improper repair by the builder, reasonable relocation

- 13 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

and storage expense, lost business income if the home was used as a principal place of business licensed to be operated from the home, reasonable investigative costs for each established violation and all other costs or fees recoverable by contract or statue, all as set forth in Civil Code § 944. Such damages far exceed the minimum jurisdictional amount of the Court according to the proof at the time of trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth in the below prayer.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE
(By SONG, DOAN, and SONG DOAN TRUST)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, CHARLIE, MD, SPECIALIZED, TBS CAL PRIME,

ARCE, REGAL, RG, WEILER, OC DECKS, CUSTOM LIFT, ROLLING SHUTTER, SMITH and DOES 1 through 50)

57. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this cause of action, the preceding paragraphs 1 through 56 of this Complaint.

58. NATIONWIDE, NADER, CHARLIE, MD, SPECIALIZED, TBS CAL

PRIME, ARCE, REGAL, RG, WEILER, OC DECKS, CUSTOM LIFT, ROLLING SHUTTER, and SMITH negligently planned, designed, improved, constructed, inspected, installed, repaired, investigated and/or replaced the PROJECT’S structural, electrical, mechanical elements, including, but not limited to, those identified in Exhibit “A” to this complaint and incorporated herein by reference, and other elements of the PROJECT presently unknown (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Project Defects”).

NATIONWIDE, NADER, CHARLIE, MD, SPECIALIZED, TBS CAL PRIME, ARCE, REGAL, RG, WEILER, OC DECKS, CUSTOM LIFT, ROLLING SHUTTER, and SMITH departed from accepted trade standards for good and workmanlike construction in violation of Business and Professions Code § 7109; failed to use adequate materials, products, goods, devices and procedures, design plans or specifications, resulting in these elements of the PROJECT not functioning or performing properly; being defective so as

- 14 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

to create unsafe and unhealthy conditions; and having caused consequential damages to the building, improvements, personal property at the PROJECT, and loss of use of property.

59. NATIONWIDE and/or NADER as BUILDER, failed to supervise the work of those under their control, failed to ensure that reported and known defects were repaired, failed to maintain proper permits or license, and failed to notify SONG of the Project defects.

60. Specifically, NATIONWIDE and/or NADER BUILDER (1) failed to properly inspect, repair and maintain the elements of the PROJECT; (2) negligently advised Plaintiffs that the PROJECT was in a condition suitable for acceptance and habitation, free from defects and/or that all Project Defects had been repaired or did not require repair; (3) performed inspections and repairs using methods and materials which were and are below applicable industry standards; and (4) negligently failed to adequately investigate Project Defects, and advise Plaintiffs of any repairs or investigations undertaken.

61. NATIONWIDE and/or NADER as BUILDER, failed to complete the PROJECT in a timely fashion.

62. NATIONWIDE and/or NADER as BUILDER failed to properly construct, improve, repair, supervise and inspect construction on the Project, so as to eliminate or mitigate the damages alleged herein.

63. NATIONWIDE and/or NADER BUILDER, so negligently planned and designed the building elements of the PROJECT that the details, plans, and specifications provided, and inspections performed, were insufficient, and the actions of said BUILDER fell below the standard of care, failed to warn of potential defects, and failed to observe and report PROJECT defects to the Plaintiffs.

64. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege that NATIONWIDE and/or NADER violated Business and Professionals Code

- 15 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

§7109 in that they willfully departed in a material respect from accepted trade standards for good and workmanlike construction.

65. As a direct and proximate result of said defects in the PROJECT, Plaintiffs have been damaged and will continue to be damaged by the expenditure of certain monies for repair and/or replacement of the Project Defects, as well as damages to other property caused as a result of the defects alleged herein, all in excess of the minimum jurisdictional amount of the Court, according to proof at the time of trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth in the below Prayer.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY
(By SONG, DOAN, and SONG DOAN TRUST)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, CHARLIE, MD, SPECIALIZED, TBS CAL PRIME,

ARCE, REGAL, RG, WEILER, OC DECKS, CUSTOM LIFT, ROLLING SHUTTER, SMITH and DOES 1 through 50)

66. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this cause of action, the preceding paragraphs 1 through 65 of this Complaint.

67. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege that NATIONWIDE, NADER, CHARLIE, MD, SPECIALIZED, TBS CAL

PRIME, ARCE, REGAL, RG, WEILER, OC DECKS, CUSTOM LIFT, ROLLING SHUTTER, and SMITH impliedly warranted that the PROJECT would be free from defects and fit for ordinary residential use, and that the complete structure was designed and constructed in a reasonably workman like manner.

68. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege that NATIONWIDE, NADER, CHARLIE, MD, SPECIALIZED, TBS CAL

- 16 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

they were in a better position than Plaintiffs, to know of defects in the construction of the PROJECT and/or defects in materials, products, and goods for the PROJECT; that Plaintiffs relied on the skill and judgment of said Defendants, and each of them, to select and provide products, materials and goods and to perform work suitable to improve and construct the PROJECT free from defects and fit for reasonable residential use, and the implied warranty that the improvements at the complete structure were designed and constructed in a reasonably workmanlike manner.

69. After Plaintiffs discovered said injuries to the PROJECT and/or defects, as hereinbefore described, notice was given to Defendants, orally and/or in writing of the breach of said implied warranties. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of said warranties, Plaintiffs have been damaged, and will be damaged, by the expenditure of certain monies for repair, installation and/or replacement of the Project Defects and for damage caused by or as a result of said project defects. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that such costs far exceed the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court, according to proof at the time of trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth in the below Prayer.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY
(By SONG, DOAN, and SONG DOAN TRUST)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, CHARLIE, MD, SPECIALIZED, TBS CAL PRIME,

ARCE, REGAL, RG, WEILER, OC DECKS, CUSTOM LIFT, ROLLING SHUTTER, SMITH and DOES 1 through 50)

70. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege, as though fully set forth in this cause of action, the preceding paragraphs 1 through 69 of this Complaint.

71. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege that NATIONWIDE, NADER, CHARLIE, MD, SPECIALIZED, TBS CAL

PRIME, ARCE, REGAL, RG, WEILER, OC DECKS, CUSTOM LIFT, ROLLING

- 17 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

SHUTTER, and SMITH expressly warranted that the PROJECT would be free from defects and fit for ordinary residential use, and that the complete structure was designed and constructed in a reasonably workman like manner.

72. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and based on such information and belief allege that NATIONWIDE, NADER, CHARLIE, MD, SPECIALIZED, TBS CAL

PRIME, ARCE, REGAL, RG, WEILER, OC DECKS, CUSTOM LIFT, ROLLING SHUTTER, and SMITH had a part in designing, building, financing, supplying, distributing products and goods used in or for the construction of the PROJECT and that they were in a better position than Plaintiffs to know of defects in the construction of the PROJECT and/or defects in materials, products, and goods for the PROJECT; that Plaintiffs relied on the skill and judgment of said Defendants, and each of them, to select and provide products, materials and goods and to perform work suitable to improve and construct the PROJECT free from defects and fit for reasonable residential use, and the express warranty that the improvements at the complete structure were designed and constructed in a reasonably workmanlike manner.

73. After Plaintiffs discovered said injuries to the PROJECT and/or defects, as hereinbefore described, notice was given to Defendants, orally and/or in writing of the breach of said express warranties. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of said warranties, Plaintiffs have been damaged, and will be damaged, by the expenditure of certain monies for repair, installation and/or replacement of the Project Defects and for damage caused by or as a result of said project defects. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that such costs far exceed the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court, according to proof at the time of trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth in the below Prayer.
///
///
///

- 18 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF CONTRACT
(By SONG)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, and DOES 8 through 50)

74. SONG incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this cause of action, the preceding paragraphs 1 through 73 of this Complaint.

75. SONG and NATIONWIDE and/or NADER entered into a contract for New Construction on or about August 15, 2020 whereby NATIONWIDE and/or NADER was to perform all necessary work to build a new home located at 202 2nd St., Huntington Beach, CA (“AGREEMENT”) in exchange for $1,050,300.00. The AGREEMENT is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” to this complaint and incorporated herein by reference.

76. SONG did all, or substantially all, of the significant things the AGREEMENT required him to do by providing payment to NATIONWIDE and/or NADER for the construction.

77. NATIONWIDE and/or NADER breached the AGREEMENT by failing to complete the agreed upon work, and providing work that is incomplete, defective, and constructed in an unworkmanlike manner.

78. After SONG discovered said breaches of contract, as hereinbefore described, notice was given to NATIONWIDE and/or NADER, orally and/or in writing of the breach of said AGREEMENT.

79. SONG is informed, believes, and thereon alleges, that NADER is the alter ego of NATIONWIDE such that he is liable for SONG’s damages.

80. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of said contract, SONG has been damaged, and will be damaged, by the expenditure of certain monies for repair, installation and/or replacement of the Project Defects and for damage caused by or as a result of said contract breach. SONG is informed and believes and thereon alleges that such costs far exceed the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court, according to proof at the time of trial.

- 19 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

WHEREFORE, SONG prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth in the below Prayer.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION - FRAUD
(By SONG and DOAN)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, and DOES 8 through 50)

81. SONG and DOAN incorporate and re-allege, as though fully set forth in this cause of action, the preceding paragraphs 1 through 80 of this Complaint.

82. NADER represented to SONG and DOAN, both individually and as the owner of NATIONWIDE, that Defendants possessed the requisite skill and craftsmanship to perform the work outlined in the AGREEMENT and that Defendants would complete the work on time and for the contract price in order to fraudulently induce SONG into a construction contract with NATIONWIDE and/or NADER for the property he owned with DOAN.

83. Defendants’ representations were false as Defendants did not possess the requisite skill and craftsmanship to perform the work outlined in the AGREEMENT and did not complete the contract despite collecting money from SONG and DOAN.

84. Defendants knew the representations were false when made.

85. SONG and DOAN are informed, believe and thereon allege that Defendants intended SONG and DOAN rely on these representations and SONG and DOAN did in fact reasonably rely on false or fraudulent representations or false statements Defendants knowingly made.

86. After SONG and DOAN discovered said misrepresentation/fraud, as hereinbefore described, notice was given to Defendants, orally and/or in writing of the misrepresentation/fraud. In reliance of the above and as direct and proximate result of the misrepresentation/fraud, SONG and DOAN have been damaged, and will be damaged, by the expenditure of certain monies for repair, installation and/or replacement of the Project Defects and for damage caused by or as a result of said fraud. SONG and

- 20 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

DOAN are informed and believe and thereon allege that such costs far exceed the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court, according to proof at the time of trial.

WHEREFORE, SONG and DOAN pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth in the below Prayer.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CONVERSION
(By SONG, DOAN, and SONG DOAN TRUST)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, and DOES 8 through 50)

87. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege, as though fully set forth in this cause of action, the preceding paragraphs 1 through 86 of this Complaint.

88. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that NATIONWIDE and/or NADER wrongfully exercised control over their personal property by failing to account for $100,000.00 paid by Plaintiffs in cash that was to be applied to SONG’s contract.

89. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that NATIONWIDE and/or NADER intentionally and substantially interfered with Plaintiff’s property by preventing Plaintiffs from having access to it and failing to account for it.

90. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that they did not consent to this intentional and substantial interference.

91. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that they were harmed by the loss of their personal property.

92. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that NATIONWIDE and/or NADER’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing their harm.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth in the below Prayer.
///
///
///

- 21 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE §7164
(By SONG)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, and DOES 8 through 50)

93. SONG incorporates and re-alleges, as though fully set forth in this cause of action, the preceding paragraphs 1 through 92 of this Complaint.

94. SONG is informed, believes and thereon alleges that the AGREEMENT is a “contract between owner and contractor for construction of single-family home” as described by §7164(a) and therefore must contain the general and special requirements outlined in §7164 (b).

95. The AGREEMENT failed to contain the approximate dates when the work will begin and be substantially completed in accordance with §7164(b)(2).

96. The AGREEMENT failed to contain a legal description of the location where the work will be done in accordance with §7164(b)(3).

97. The AGREEMENT failed to contain a statement with the heading “Mechanics Lien Warning” with the language required by §7164(b)(4).

98. The AGREEMENT failed to contain a statement prepared by the board through regulation that emphasizes the value of commercial general liability insurance and encourages the owner to verify the contractor's insurance coverage and status and a check box indicating whether or not the contractor carries commercial general liability insurance in accordance with §7164(b)(5).

99. The AGREEMENT failed to contain a notice stating that the owner has the right to require the contractor to have a performance and payment bond in close proximity to the signatures of the owner and contractor in accordance with §7164(d). 100. As a direct and proximate result of the code violation, SONG has been damaged, and will be damaged, by the expenditure of certain monies caused by or as a result of said violation. SONG is informed and believes and thereon alleges that such

- 22 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

costs far exceed the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court, according to proof at the time of trial.

WHEREFORE, SONG prays for judgment as hereinafter set forth in the below Prayer.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE §7031
(By SONG, DOAN, and SONG DOAN TRUST)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, and DOES 8 through 50)
101. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege, as though fully set forth in this cause of action, the preceding paragraphs 1 through 100 of this Complaint. 102. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that NATIONWIDE and/or NADER may have not been duly licensed as required by the code. 103. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that NATIONWIDE and/or NADER may have not been duly bonded as required by the code. 104. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that NATIONWIDE and/or NADER may have not carried proper workman’s compensation insurance as required by the code.
105. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that NATIONWIDE and/or NADER may have violated the code in another manner not yet ascertained.

Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this complaint after further discovery is made. 106. As a direct and proximate result of the code violation, Plaintiffs have been damaged, and will be damaged, by the expenditure of certain monies caused by or as a result of said violation. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that such costs far exceed the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court, according to proof at the time of trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth in the below Prayer.
///

- 23 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
ACTION ON SURETY BOND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 7071.5 (By SONG, DOAN, and SONG DOAN TRUST)
(Against HUDSON, NAVIGATORS, BUSINESS ALLIANCE, AMERICAN, OHIO, SURETEC and DOES 51 through 100)
107. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege, as though fully set forth in this cause of action, the preceding paragraphs 1 through 106 of this Complaint. 108. Defendant HUDSON has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number 30026732 in the amount of $15,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant NATIONWIDE and/or NADER, License Number 1031246, and as such, assumed the liability of NATIONWIDE and/or NADER to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.
109. Defendant HUDSON has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number 30006906 in the amount of $15,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant SPECIALIZED, License Number 1005885, and as such, assumed the liability of SPECIALIZED to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.
110. Defendant HUDSON has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number 30050713 in the amount of $15,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant WEILER, License Number 586459, and as such, assumed the liability of WEILER to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.
111. Defendant NAVIGATORS has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number NAV00020338 in the amount of $15,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant TBS, License Number 1012469, and as such, assumed the liability of TBS to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.

- 24 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

112. Defendant NAVIGATORS has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number NAV00015704 in the amount of $15,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant RG, License Number 975675, and as such, assumed the liability of RG to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.
113. Defendant BUSINESS ALLIANCE has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number G110413096471 in the amount of $15,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant CAL PRIME, License Number 1075613, and as such, assumed the liability of CAL PRIME to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.
114. Defendant BUSINESS ALLIANCE has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number G100513078379 in the amount of $15,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant REGAL, License Number 1000371, and as such, assumed the liability of REGAL to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.
115. Defendant AMERICAN has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number 100531324the amount of $15,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant CAL ARCE, License Number 977091, and as such, assumed the liability of ARCE to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.
116. Defendant AMERICAN has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number SC1039338 in the amount of $25,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant OC DECKS, License Number 857286, and as such, assumed the liability of OC DECKS to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.
117. Defendant OHIO has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number 661161C in the amount of $15,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant CUSTOM LIFT, License Number

- 25 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

417741, and as such, assumed the liability of CUSTOM LIFT to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.
118. Defendant SURETEC has underwritten and provided in their capacity as a Surety, a Contractor’s License Bond Number 143600 in the amount of $25,000.00 on the California State Contractor’s License of Defendant ROLLING SHUTTER, License Number 9900221, and as such, assumed the liability of ROLLING SHUTTER to the extent of the penal sum of the bond.
119. Plaintiffs have been damaged as a result of Defendants’ violations of the Business and Professions Code § 7000 et seq., California State Contractor’s License Law, in the contracting for new construction and as such, hereby claims right to the bonds underwritten or provided as set forth above in the amount of $15,000.00.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth in the below Prayer.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
ACTION TO EXPUNGE MECHANIC’S LIEN CIVIL CODE § 3118
(By SONG, DOAN, and SONG DOAN TRUST)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, and DOES 1 through 50)
120. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege, as though fully set forth in this cause of action, the preceding paragraphs 1 through 119 of this Complaint. 121. Defendants NATIONWIDE and/or NADER have caused a Mechanic’s Lien to be recorded on Plaintiffs’ real property located at 204 2nd St., Huntington Beach, CA in the amount of $359,282.96 together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from April 1, 2023.
122. Defendants have claimed an amount owed to them that is larger than any sum actually owed to them. The actual amount owed to Defendants is $0.00. 123. As a result, Defendants have forfeited any right to a lien on Plaintiffs’ property.

- 26 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

124. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth in the below Prayer.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against DEFENDANTS, as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

VIOLATIONS OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING STANDARDS
CIVIL CODE §§ 896 AND 897
(By SONG, DOAN, and SONG DOAN TRUST)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, CHARLIE, MD, SPECIALIZED, TBS CAL

PRIME, ARCE, REGAL, RG, WEILER, OC DECKS, CUSTOM LIFT,
ROLLING SHUTTER, SMITH and DOES 1 through 50)

1. For damages in an amount to be determined and according to proof at the trial of this action;

2. For interest thereon, at the maximum legal rate;

3. For prejudgment interest on all sums awarded, at the maximum legal rate;

4. For damages for the reasonable value of repairing any violation of the standards set for in Civil Code §944;

5. For the reasonable cost of repairing any damages caused by the repair efforts;

6. For the reasonable cost of removing and replacing any improper repair by the builder;

7. Attorney fees in an amount the court determines to be reasonable;

8. For reasonable relocation and storage expenses;

9. For loss of income;

10. For reasonable investigative costs for each established violations;

11. For costs of suit incurred herein;

- 27 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

12. For consequential damages according to proof at the time of trial and as provided by law;

13. For expert fees and costs;

14. For loss of use of the property; and

15. For such and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

NEGLIGENCE
(By SONG, DOAN, and SONG DOAN TRUST)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, CHARLIE, MD, SPECIALIZED, TBS CAL PRIME,

ARCE, REGAL, RG, WEILER, OC DECKS, CUSTOM LIFT, ROLLING SHUTTER, SMITH and DOES 1 through 50)

16. For damages in an amount to be determined and according to proof at the trial of this action;

17. For interest thereon, at the maximum legal rate;

18. For prejudgment interest on all sums awarded, at the maximum legal rate;

19. For damages for the reasonable value of repairing any violation of the standards set for in Civil Code §944;

20. For the reasonable cost of repairing any damages caused by the repair efforts;

21. For the reasonable cost of removing and replacing any improper repair by the builder;

22. Attorney fees in an amount the court determines to be reasonable;

23. For reasonable relocation and storage expenses;

24. For loss of income;

25. For reasonable investigative costs for each established violations;

26. For costs of suit incurred herein;

- 28 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

27. For consequential damages according to proof at the time of trial and as provided by law;

28. For expert fees and costs;

29. For loss of use of the property; and

30. For such and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY
(By SONG, DOAN, and SONG DOAN TRUST)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, CHARLIE, MD, SPECIALIZED, TBS CAL PRIME,

ARCE, REGAL, RG, WEILER, OC DECKS, CUSTOM LIFT, ROLLING SHUTTER, SMITH and DOES 1 through 50)

31. For damages in an amount to be determined and according to proof at the trial of this action;

32. For interest thereon, at the maximum legal rate;

33. For prejudgment interest on all sums awarded, at the maximum legal rate;

34. For damages for the reasonable value of repairing any violation of the standards set for in Civil Code §944;

35. For the reasonable cost of repairing any damages caused by the repair efforts;

36. For the reasonable cost of removing and replacing any improper repair by the builder;

37. Attorney fees in an amount the court determines to be reasonable;

38. For reasonable relocation and storage expenses;

39. For loss of income;

40. For reasonable investigative costs for each established violations;

41. For costs of suit incurred herein;

- 29 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

42. For consequential damages according to proof at the time of trial and as provided by law;

43. For expert fees and costs;

44. For loss of use of the property; and

45. For such and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY
(By SONG, DOAN, and SONG DOAN TRUST)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, CHARLIE, MD, SPECIALIZED, TBS CAL PRIME,

ARCE, REGAL, RG, WEILER, OC DECKS, CUSTOM LIFT, ROLLING SHUTTER, SMITH and DOES 1 through 50)

46. For damages in an amount to be determined and according to proof at the trial of this action;

47. For interest thereon, at the maximum legal rate;

48. For prejudgment interest on all sums awarded, at the maximum legal rate;

49. For damages for the reasonable value of repairing any violation of the standards set for in Civil Code §944;

50. For the reasonable cost of repairing any damages caused by the repair efforts;

51. For the reasonable cost of removing and replacing any improper repair by the builder;

52. Attorney fees in an amount the court determines to be reasonable;

53. For reasonable relocation and storage expenses;

54. For loss of income;

55. For reasonable investigative costs for each established violations;

56. For costs of suit incurred herein;

- 30 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

57. For consequential damages according to proof at the time of trial and as provided by law;

58. For expert fees and costs;

59. For loss of use of the property; and

60. For such and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

BREACH OF CONTRACT
(By SONG)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, and DOES 8 through 50)

61. For damages in an amount to be determined and according to proof at the trial of this action;

62. For interest thereon, at the maximum legal rate;

63. For prejudgment interest on all sums awarded, at the maximum legal rate;

64. For damages for the reasonable value of repairing any violation of the standards set for in Civil Code §944;

65. For the reasonable cost of repairing any damages caused by the repair efforts;

66. For the reasonable cost of removing and replacing any improper repair by the builder;

67. Attorney fees in an amount the court determines to be reasonable;

68. For reasonable relocation and storage expenses;

69. For loss of income;

70. For reasonable investigative costs for each established violations;

71. For costs of suit incurred herein;

72. For consequential damages according to proof at the time of trial and as provided by law;

73. For expert fees and costs;

- 31 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

74. For loss of use of the property; and

75. For such and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION - FRAUD
(By SONG and DOAN)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, and DOES 8 through 50)

76. For damages in an amount to be determined and according to proof at the trial of this action;

77. For interest thereon, at the maximum legal rate;

78. For prejudgment interest on all sums awarded, at the maximum legal rate;

79. For damages for the reasonable value of repairing any violation of the standards set for in Civil Code §944;

80. For the reasonable cost of repairing any damages caused by the repair efforts;

81. For the reasonable cost of removing and replacing any improper repair by the builder;

82. Attorney fees per Business and Professionals Code §7160 in an amount the court determines to be reasonable;

83. $500 Penalty per Business and Professionals Code §7160.

84. For reasonable relocation and storage expenses;

85. For loss of income;

86. For reasonable investigative costs for each established violations;

87. For costs of suit incurred herein;

88. For consequential damages according to proof at the time of trial and as provided by law;

89. For expert fees and costs;

90. For putative damages;

- 32 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

91. For loss of use of the property; and

92. For such and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CONVERSION
(By SONG, DOAN, and SONG DOAN TRUST)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, and DOES 8 through 50)

93. For damages in an amount to be determined and according to proof at the trial of this action;

94. For interest thereon, at the maximum legal rate;

95. For prejudgment interest on all sums awarded, at the maximum legal rate;

96. Attorney fees in an amount the court determines to be reasonable;

97. For reasonable investigative costs for each established violations;

98. For costs of suit incurred herein;

99. For consequential damages according to proof at the time of trial and as provided by law;
100. For expert fees and costs;
101. For loss of use of the property; and
102. For such and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE §7164
(By SONG)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, and DOES 8 through 50)
103. For damages in an amount to be determined and according to proof at the trial of this action;
104. For interest thereon, at the maximum legal rate;
105. For prejudgment interest on all sums awarded, at the maximum legal rate;

- 33 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

106. For damages for the reasonable value of repairing any violation of the standards set for in Civil Code §944;
107. For the reasonable cost of repairing any damages caused by the repair efforts;
108. For the reasonable cost of removing and replacing any improper repair by the builder;
109. Attorney fees in an amount the court determines to be reasonable; 110. For reasonable relocation and storage expenses;
111. For loss of income;
112. For reasonable investigative costs for each established violations; 113. For costs of suit incurred herein;
114. For consequential damages according to proof at the time of trial and as provided by law;
115. For expert fees and costs;
116. For loss of use of the property; and
117. For such and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE §7031
(By SONG, DOAN, and SONG DOAN TRUST)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, and DOES 8 through 50)
118. For damages in an amount to be determined and according to proof at the trial of this action;
119. For interest thereon, at the maximum legal rate;
120. For prejudgment interest on all sums awarded, at the maximum legal rate;
121. For damages for the reasonable value of repairing any violation of the standards set for in Civil Code §944;

- 34 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

122. For the reasonable cost of repairing any damages caused by the repair efforts;
123. For the reasonable cost of removing and replacing any improper repair by the builder;
124. Attorney fees in an amount the court determines to be reasonable; 125. For reasonable relocation and storage expenses;
126. For loss of income;
127. For reasonable investigative costs for each established violations; 128. For costs of suit incurred herein;
129. For consequential damages according to proof at the time of trial and as provided by law;
130. For expert fees and costs;
131. For loss of use of the property; and
132. For such and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
ACTION ON SURETY BOND BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 7071.5 (By SONG, DOAN, and SONG DOAN TRUST)
(Against HUDSON, NAVIGATORS, BUSINESS ALLIANCE, AMERICAN, OHIO, SURETEC and DOES 51 through 100)
133. For damages in the amount of the penal sum of the bond in the amount of $15,000.00; and
134. For such and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
ACTION TO EXPUNGE MECHANIC’S LIEN CIVIL CODE § 3118
(By SONG, DOAN, and SONG DOAN TRUST)
(Against NATIONWIDE, NADER, and DOES 1 through 50)
135. For an order expunging the mechanic’s lien;
136. Attorney fees in an amount the court determines to be reasonable;

- 35 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

137. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
138. For such and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: August 22, 2023 ENGELS LAW

___________________________________
Christopher Engels, Esq.

Attorneys for Alex Song and Traci Doan,
individually and as Trustees of The Song
Doan Nevada Trust

- 36 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC
555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150
C OSTA M ESA CA 92626
TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709
Exhibit A

PRELIMINARY LIST OF VIOLATIONS OF CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS

ACTIONABLE VIOLATIONS UNDER
CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §896-§897
Cal C
iv Code §896
(a) With respect to water issues:
(1) A door shall not allow unintended water to pass beyond, around, or through the door or its designed or actual moisture barriers, if any.
(2) Windows, patio doors, deck doors, and their systems shall not allow water to pass beyond, around, or through the window, patio door, or deck door or its designed or actual moisture barriers, including, without limitation, internal barriers within the systems themselves. For purposes of this paragraph, “systems” include, without limitation, windows, window assemblies, framing, substrate, flashings, and trim, if any. (3) Windows, patio doors, deck doors, and their systems shall not allow excessive condensation to enter the structure and cause damage to another component. For purposes of this paragraph, “systems” include, without limitation, windows, window assemblies, framing, substrate, flashings, and trim, if any.
(4) Roofs, roofing systems, chimney caps, and ventilation components shall not allow water to enter the structure or to pass beyond, around, or through the designed or actual moisture barriers, including, without limitation, internal barriers located within the systems themselves. For purposes of this paragraph, “systems” include, without limitation, framing, substrate, and sheathing, if any.
(5) Decks, deck systems, balconies, balcony systems, exterior stairs, and stair systems shall not allow water to pass into the adjacent structure. For purposes of this paragraph, “systems” include, without limitation, framing, substrate, flashing, and sheathing, if any. (6) Decks, deck systems, balconies, balcony systems, exterior stairs, and stair systems shall not allow unintended water to pass within the systems themselves and cause damage to the systems. For purposes of this paragraph, “systems” include, without limitation, framing, substrate, flashing, and sheathing, if any.
(9) Hardscape, including paths and patios, irrigation systems, landscaping systems, and drainage systems, that are installed as part of the original construction, shall not be installed in such a way as to cause water or soil erosion to enter into or come in contact with the structure so as to cause damage to another building component. (10) Stucco, exterior siding, exterior walls, including, without limitation, exterior framing, and other exterior wall finishes and fixtures and the systems of those components and fixtures, including, but not limited to, pot shelves, horizontal surfaces, columns, and plant-ons, shall be installed in such a way so as not to allow unintended water to pass into the structure or to pass beyond, around, or through the designed or actual moisture barriers of the system, including any internal barriers located within the system itself. For purposes of this paragraph, “systems” include, without limitation, framing, substrate, flashings, trim, wall assemblies, and internal wall cavities, if any. (11) Stucco, exterior siding, and exterior walls shall not allow excessive condensation to enter the structure and cause damage to another component. For purposes of this paragraph, “systems” include, without limitation, framing, substrate, flashings, trim, wall assemblies, and internal wall cavities, if any.
(18) The waterproofing system behind or under ceramic tile and tile countertops shall not allow water into the interior of walls, flooring systems, or other components so as to cause damage. Ceramic tile systems shall be designed and installed so as to deflect intended water to the waterproofing system.
(d) With respect to fire protection issues:
(1) A structure shall be constructed so as to materially comply with the design criteria of the applicable government building codes, regulations, and ordinances for fire protection

- 37 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC

555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150

C OSTA M ESA CA 92626

TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709

of the occupants in effect at the time of the original construction.

(g) With respect to issues regarding other areas of construction:
(1) Exterior pathways, driveways, hardscape, sidewalls, sidewalks, and patios installed by the original builder shall not contain cracks that display significant vertical displacement or that are excessive. However, no action shall be brought upon a violation of this paragraph more than four years from close of escrow.
(2) Stucco, exterior siding, and other exterior wall finishes and fixtures, including, but not limited to, pot shelves, horizontal surfaces, columns, and plant-ons, shall not contain significant cracks or separations.
(3) (A) To the extent not otherwise covered by these standards, manufactured products, including, but not limited to, windows, doors, roofs, plumbing products and fixtures, fireplaces, electrical fixtures, HVAC units, countertops, cabinets, paint, and appliances shall be installed so as not to interfere with the products’ useful life, if any. (B) For purposes of this paragraph, “useful life” means a representation of how long a product is warranted or represented, through its limited warranty or any written representations, to last by its manufacturer, including recommended or required maintenance. If there is no representation by a manufacturer, a builder shall install manufactured products so as not to interfere with the product’s utility. (C) For purposes of this paragraph, “manufactured product” means a product that is completely manufactured offsite.
(D) If no useful life representation is made, or if the representation is less than one year, the period shall be no less than one year. If a manufactured product is damaged as a result of a violation of these standards, damage to the product is a recoverable element of damages. This subparagraph does not limit recovery if there has been damage to another building component caused by a manufactured product during the manufactured product’s useful life.
(E) This title does not apply in any action seeking recovery solely for a defect in a manufactured product located within or adjacent to a structure. (13) Ceramic tile and tile backing shall be installed in such a manner that the tile does not detach.
(15) Structures shall be constructed in such a manner so as not to impair the occupants’ safety because they contain public health hazards as determined by a duly authorized public health official, health agency, or governmental entity having jurisdiction. This paragraph does not limit recovery for any damages caused by a violation of any other paragraph of this section on the grounds that the damages do not constitute a health hazard.

Cal Civ Code §897
The standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure. To the extent that a function or component of a structure is not addressed by these standards, it shall be actionable if it causes damage.

- 38 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

E NGELS LAW APC
555 A NTON B LVD ., S UITE 150
C OSTA M ESA CA 92626
TELEPHONE: (949) 269 - 7709
Exhibit B

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

-1-

PROOF OF SERVICE

PROOF OF SERVICE
I am
employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 555 Anton Blvd. Suite 150 Costa Mesa , California.

I ser
ved the within document(s) described as:

FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES; and FIRST AMENDED

SUMMONS WITH ATTACHMENT FOR ADDITIONAL PARTIES
on the
interested parties in this action as stated on the attached mailing list. [] ( BY MAIL)
By placing a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as set forth on the attached mailing list. I placed each such envelope for collection and mailing following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with this Firm’s practices for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, the correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on that same day, with postage thereon fully prepaid at Ladera Ranch, California, in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
[ ] ( BY OVERNI
GHT DELI VERY) I deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by overnight service , an express service carrier, or delivered to a courier or driver authorized by said express service carrier to receive documents, a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope or package designated by the express service carrier, addressed as set forth on the attached mailing list, with fees for overnight delivery paid or provided for.
[ x] ( BY
FACSIMILE OR EMAIL) Based upon an agreement of the parties to accept service by facsimile transmission or email, I caused the foregoing document(s) to be transmitted to a facsimile machine telephone number or email address as last given by counsel or party in pro per as set forth on the attached mailing list.
[ ] ( BY
PERSONAL DELIVERY) By placing a true copy of the foregoing document(s) in a sealed envelope addressed as set forth on the attached mailing list and causing such envelope(s) to be delivered to the office of the addressee(s).

I decl
are under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Execut
ed on August 22, 2023, at Costa Mesa, California.
_______________________________
Leilan
i Kaihewalu

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
-2-

PROOF OF SERVICE

SERVICE LIST
CASE NO. 30-2023-01326343
Christopher Morrow
Teresa L. Polk

SMTD LAW LLP
17901 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 500
Irvine, California 92614
T:
(949) 537-3800
E: [email protected] ; [email protected]
Attorneys for Elie Nader and
Nationwide Contracting Services Inc.,
dba Nationwide General Construction
Services
i
D
1 RAQUEL CRUZ State Bar No 256399 SPACE BELOW FOR COURT USE ONLY THE L 4W OFFICES OF LARRY H PAf KER INC
2 350 San Antonio Drive
Long Beach California 90807 0948
F I L E D3 562 427 2044 Fax 562 490 9855

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN P3ERNARDINO
4 SAN BERNARDINO C V L DIVISION
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff Rufina Loeras OCT 0 2 2014
s
6 p
L
DEPUTY
1 v
7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10 11 RUFINA LOERAS
j
CASE NO l yE
12 Plaintiff COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL

INJURIES
13 v
14 SATIEL HERNANDEZ PEREZ

KASA CONSTRUCTION INC
15 and DOES 1 through 100 Inclusive
16 Defendants
17 18
19 Plaintiff Rufina Loeras alleges
20 21 1 At all times herein mentioned plaintiff Rufina Loeras was and is a 22 competent adult residing in the City of Fontana County of San Bernardino California 23 2 At all times herein mentioned defendant Satiel Hernandez Perez 24 was and is a natural person residing in the City of San Bernardino County of San 25 Bernardino California
26 27
28 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
1 3 Plaintiff Rufina Loeras is unsure of the legal capacities of 2 defendantKasaContructionInc whethercorporatedba partnershipjoint ventureor 3 otherwise and will seek leave to amend this complaint at such time as same is 4 discovered or will disclose same through discovery
5 4 The true names and capacities of the defendants sued herein as 6 Does 1 through 100 inclusive are unknown to plaintiff who therefore sues said 7 defendants by such fictitious names Plaintiff Rufina Loeras is informed and believes 8 and thereon alleges that each of the defendants herein designated as a Doe is legally 9 responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to and 10 caused injury and damages to plaintiff as herein alleged 11 5 At all times alleged herein each defendant was the agent and 12 employee of each of his codefendants and in doing the things herein described was 13 acting within the scope of his authority as such agent and employee 14 6 At all times material herein Valley Boulevard was and is a public 15 highway in the City of Fontana County of San Bernardino State of California 16 7 On or about March 25 2014 plaintiff Rufina Loeras was the driver 17 of a vehicle on Valley Boulevard at or near its intersection with Juniper Avenue and at 18 the same time and place defendants and each of them so negligently owned 19 controlled repaired entrusted maintained and operated an automobile as to cause it 20 to and it did become involved in an accident or collision injuring and damaging plaintiff 21 as hereinafter described
22 8 At all times set forth herein defendants and each of them were the 23 owners of their aforementioned automobile and at all times herein referred to said 24 vehicle was being used and operated with the knowledge and consent of said owners 25 26
27 28
2 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
1 9 As a cause of said conduct of defendants and each of them 2 plaintiff sustained personal injuries which caused and will continue to cause pain 3 discomfortand physicaldisabilityto plaintiff generaldamagein an amountaccordingto 4 proof which in good faith is believed to be an amount within the jurisdictional limits of 5 this court
6 10 As a further cause of said conduct of defendants and each of 7 them plaintiff employed and will employ in the future physicians surgeons and others 8 for examination treatment and care and thereby incurred and will incur medical and 9 incidental expense the exact amount of which is unknown at this time and plaintiff will 10 offer proof thereof at the time of trial
11 11 As a further cause of the above described conduct of defendants 12 and each of them the aforementioned automobile of plaintiff was damaged and 13 depreciated so that repairs were necessary the reasonable costs of repairs or the 14 amount of depreciation being unknown at this time and plaintiff will offer proof thereof 15 at the time of trial
16 12 As a further cause of said conduct of defendants and each of 17 them plaintiff lost the use of said automobile for a period of time that the reasonable 18 value of said loss of use of said automobile is unknown to plaintiff at this time and plain 19 tiff will offer proof thereof at the time of trial
20 13 At the time of the described improper conduct of defendants and 21 each of them plaintiff Rufina Loeras was gainfully employed for compensation and as 22 a further cause of defendants conduct and each of them plaintiff has been and in the 23 future wifl be deprived of earnings the exact amount of which is unknown at this time 24 and plaintiff will offer proof thereof at the time of trial 25 26
27 28
3 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
e
1 WHEREFORE judgment is prayed for against defendants and each of 2 them as follows
3 1 General damages according to proof
4 2 Medicaland relatedexpenses pastandfuture accordingto proof 5 3 Loss of earnings past and future in a sum according to proof 6 4 Loss of income from impaired earning capacity past and future 7 according to proof
8 5 Property damage in a sum according to proof
9 6 Loss of use of automobile in a sum according to proof 10 7 For prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code 3291 11 8 Costs of suit incurred herein and
12 9 For such other relief as may be appropriate
13 14
15 Dated September 2014
16 RAQUE CRUZ Member of
17 THE LAW OF ES LARRY H PAR E INC
Attorneys for lainti fina Loeras
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 a

COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES
Page: 1 of 1
2Total Records:
12/14/2023Search Date:

Filter Applied:

Defendant Name
all american asphalt
Defendant Name Party
Type
Case
Number
NAICS
Code NAICS Industry Date
Filed
Assigned
Deputy DIR Office Case Status
All American Asphalt, a
California Corporation Defendant WC-CM-888710 32732 Ready-Mix Concrete Manufacturing 06/11/2022 Puniloa
Chavira
San
Bernardino
WCA
Hearing
Approved
All American Asphalt, a
California Corporation Defendant WC-CM-780654 561311 Employment Placement Agencies 03/27/2020 Maria Elena
Sandoval
San
Bernardino
WCA
Closed Settled –
Pre-hearing
Page: 1 of 1
1Total Records:
12/15/2023Search Date:

Filter Applied:

Defendant Name
pcn3
Defendant
Name
Party
Type
Case
Number
NAICS
Code
NAICS
Industry
Date
Filed
Assigned
Deputy DIR Office Case
Status
PCN3, INC., Defendant 05-55056 02/17/2012 Long Beach
WCA Closed

STAFF REPORT
S.A. ITEM NO. __1__

TO: Honorable Chair and Board Members of the Successor Agency to the Dissolved Community Development Commission of The City of Baldwin Park

FROM: Rose Tam, Director of Finance
DATE: February 07, 2024
SUBJECT: Successor Agency To The Dissolved Community Development Commission of The City of Baldwin Park Warrants and
Demands

SUMMARY
Attached is the Warrants and Demands Register for the Successor Agency to the Dissolved Community Development Commission of the City of Baldwin Park to be ratified by the City Council.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board ratify the attached Warrants and Demands Register.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total of the attached Warrants Register for Successor Agency of the City of Baldwin Park was $6,540.19.

BACKGROUND
The attached Claims and Demands the required information as set out in the California Government Code. Staff has reviewed the requests for expenditures for the appropriate budgetary approval and for the authorization from the department head or its designee. Pursuant to Section 37208 of the California Government Code, the Chief Executive Officer or his/her designee does hereby certify to the accuracy of the demands hereinafter referred. Payments released since the previous meeting and the following is a summary of the payment released:

1. The December 12, 2023 to January 24, 2024 Successor Agency Warrant with check number 13628 through 13632 in the total amount of $6,540.19 was made on behalf of Successor Agency of the City of Baldwin Park constituting of claim and demand against the Successor Agency of the City of Baldwin Park, are herewith presented to the City Council as required by law, and hereby ratified.

LEGAL REVIEW
Not Applicable

ATTACHMENT

1. Check Register

Check Register
City of Baldwin Park, CA By (None)
Payment Dates 12/12/2023 - 1/24/2024
Payment Number Payment Date Vendor Name Description (Item) Account Number Amount 13628 12/14/2023 RSG INC HOUSING SUCCESSOR EXPENDITURE CATCH-UP 890-40-405-51100-00000 556.25$ 13629 01/04/2024 RSG INC HOUSING SUCCESSOR EXPENDITURE CATCH-UP 890-40-405-51100-00000 1,406.25$ 13630 01/11/2024 CHRISTENSEN & SPATH LLP LEGAL SERVICE-HOUSING PROGAM IN OCT& DEC 2023 890-40-131-51102-54000 3,600.00$ 13631 01/11/2024 HDL, COREN & CONE PROPERTY TAX-JULY-SEP 2023 838-00-000-51100-14900 940.19$ 13632 01/18/2024 RSG INC HOUSING SUCCESSOR EXPENDITURE CATCH-UP 890-40-405-51100-00000 37.50$ Grand Total: 6,540.19$

Baldwin Park City CouncilFebruary 7, 2024

Baldwin Park City Council
February 7, 2024