Complaint Unlimited Fee AppliesCal. Super. - 6th Dist.April 1, 2021I Kevin P. Courtney, Esq. SBN876133 Law Offices of Kevin P. Courtney 2 17415 Monterey Rd. II204 Morgan Hill, CA 95037-3668 3 408-779-5101 (V) 408-779-6833 (F) 4 kevin@courtneylawgroup.corn 5 Attorney for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 10 Joseph Haar, Shannon Hear, Case Nos Plaintiffs, Complaint for Damages Unlimited Jurisdiction11 Vs. 12 Steven E. Smith, Saratoga Pavers, Silva Contractors, Inc., 13 Geicyler H. Silva, and Does 1-10, inclusive 14 Defendants 15 COUNT ONE 16 Plaintiffs, Joseph and Shannon Haar complain: 1. The true names or capacities of Defendants sued herein as does I through 10, inclusive, are unknown tc17 Plaintiffs who thereby sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Each of the Defendants named herein as doe i» 18 negligently responsible in some manner for the events sued upon. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to insert the true names and capacities of the Defendants named herein as doe when said names and capacities have beer.19 ascertained. 20 2. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times mentioned herein, each of the Defendants was the agent and employee of each of the remaining Defendants and in doing the things herein after21 alleged, was acting within the scope of said agency. 22 3. On or about November 4, 2019, ht the City of Morgan Hill, Californi, Plaintiffs and Defendants enterec 23 into a written agreement. A copy of the agreement is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein as though set out in full. 4. By the terms of the contract it was to be performed in the City of Morgan Hill, County of Santa Clara, State of California. Complaint for Damages - I E-FILED 4/1/2021 12:00 AM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 21CV381430 Reviewed By: D Harris 21CV381430 5. Plaintiffs have performed all conditions, covenants, and promises under the contract which they wer& obliged to perform. 2 6. On or about May 14, 2020, Defendants breached the contract by the following acts: a. Failing to properly supervise, install, complete and correct the contracted work. b. Failing to comply with statutory requirements under the California State Licensing Board. c. Abandoning the job before completion. 7. As a result of the Defendant's acts or omissions to act including breach of the contract, Plaintiffs have suffered general damages in the sum of $ 110,000.00, or such other and further sum as will be shown according tc proof at time of trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth. COUNT TWO 8. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 6 and incorporates them herein as though fully set forth. 9. On or about November 4, 2019, in the City of Morgan Hill, California, Defendants falsely anc fraudulently made the following representations to Plaintiffs: a. That Defendants were in compliance with all California Contractors License Board regulations.11 b. That Defendants had the skill, knowledge and expertise to complete the construction in a workman like manner consistent with industry standards. 13 14 c. That Defendants would act in good faith in completing the contracts. 10. The representations so made by Defendants were in fact false for the following reasons: a. Defendants were not complying with CSLB regulations and lacked the skill, knowledge and expertise to perform the work and had no intention of acting in good faith toward Plaintiffs.15 11. At the time Defendants made said representations, Defendants had no sufficient or reasonable ground for believing said representations to be true in that the Defendants, did not have information and data sufficient tc enable Defendants to make the determination whether the representations were true. At the time of making the17 representations, Defendants concealed from Plaintiffs the lack of information and data that prevented Defendant 18 from making a hue evaluation of the facts. 12. Plaintiffs at the time the representations were made had no knowledge of their falsity, but in fact19 believed them to be true. Plaintiffs relied upon the representations of Defendants and was not in the position to make 20 an independent investigation for the following reasons: Plaintiffs had trust and confidence in Defendants. 13. Had Plaintiffs known the true facts, Plaintiffs would not have taken the following action, which they21 were induced to take: entered into the contract with Defendants. 22 14. By reasons of the acts or omissions to act alleged, Plaintiffs have been generally damaged in the sum ot $ 110,000. 00 23 WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth. 24 COUNT THREE 25 Plaintiffs reallege all of the allegations in COUNT ONE and incorporates them by reference herein. Complaint for Damages - 2 1 15. At the time of negotiating and entering into said contract, Defendants promised Plaintiffs that they would comply with CSLB regulations and complete the job in a workmanlike manner and to act in good faith upor2 performance by Plaintiffs, and Defendants implied the intention of performing the promise. 3 16. Defendants, in truth and in fact, never intended to perform as promised, and such promise was made without the intention ofperforming.4 17. Defendants made said promise with the intention of deceiving and defrauding Plaintiffs and with the intention of inducing Plaintiffs to perform under the terms of the said contract. 18. That Plaintiffs performed in justifiable reliance on the promise of Defendants. 19. That as a proximate result of Defendants'cts and omissions alleged herein, Plaintiffs have been damaged in the sum of $ 110,000.00. 20. That Defendants'aid acts were fraudulent, oppressive, and made with the intent to vex and haras. Plaintiffs, and therefore, Plaintiffs ask that the Court assess punitive and exemplary damages against Defendants in s sum sufficient to punish and make an example out of Defendants. 10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as hereinafter set forth. COUNT FOUR 21. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants were the legal (proximate) cause of damages to Plaintiffs by the following acts or omissions to act; Defendants negligently caused the damage to Plaintiffs on May 14, 2020, ir Morgan Hill CA by failing to comply with CSLB regulations and complete the job in a workmanlike manner and tc13 act in good faith. 14 15 16 17 19 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows: 1. For compensatory damages as prayed for; 2. That exemplary and punitive damages be assessed against Defendants to punish anc make an example of them in the sum sufficient in accordance with their financial worth; 3. For Plaintiff attorney's fees. 4. For costs of suit herein incurred; and 5. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 20 21 Dated: Wednesday, By: 22 23 24 25 Law Offices of Kevin P. Courtney 17415 Monterey Rd. ¹204 Morgan Hill, CA 95037-3668 kevin@courtneylawgroup.corn 408-779-5101 (V) Complaint for Damages - 3 Proposal Steven E. Smith wwwSaratogapavers,corn /iddress: 14531 la Rincariada Diive City; Las Gatos, CA 95032 contact (owner)i steven E. smith Llcg627690 Cel! 400-621-1248 Ricky Silva field praiect manager Lie@995639 PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO: Any alterations or deviation from the above specifications involving extra cost of material or labor will beexecuted upon written order far same, and will became an extra charge over the sum mentioned in thiscoiii race Ali agreeuiei its iinist be itladf iil writrng. Name:;: Jae ik ShannOn Haar Phone:;: 408-390-5643 .Street ," 1976 AlpertDrive City".:; Morgan Hill Email: 'Joe herr@yahoo.corn Date: 11/4/2019 'tate: i.'A Zip: 95037 1. Concrete removal to the dumps and then remove the baserock and some dirt to the the rear of thepraperty 2. Dig a trench for the 3'* piping that will handle water flow from the downspouts or other Christie boxesnccdcd. 3. The grading wiil take place during this phase and Geotech fabric installed before baserack as weil4. All new class two baserack brought in during this phase with complete compaction to begin Gradin@: 1. During demo we will plan for afl grading 2. Dig a trench far the 3" piping to go into appropriate area with 2/o grade3. The grading wil! need attention for the pavers with a 2 e/0 grade needed to remove rain water away fromthe lioiiie and give the malestic look with the pavei s not gi ad ing to touch Front courtvard: 1. Pressure wash and seal 2. Pavers to flair into the columns to give a nice flow 3. Roman stone to be used in front of the front courtyard wall wrapping left and right as discussed Bullet Points nertainine to this nroiect: 1. Removal of the entire driveway 10"-12" deep 2. Old baserock and clean dirt moved to the appropriate area 3. Relocate the circle to be center of the door and all agree at the right moinent exactly how big4. Flah the Ieft waikway to the side yard and wraparound to wherever Joe and Shannon agree-Q Cc su)Jp,5. paver design shall start being center of the two existing beautiful columns out front ldin~fg6. Front gate shall get pavers installed as well to flowinto the drivewayy 7. The street entering the driveway shall have a nice transition either pavers with a nice concrete swellorasphalt '4 M c~v~pt CJ, Q & G~ P~ciaM 8, Widening the lei't side as you enter the driveway center to the column and flow into the walkwayWidcun'g th rtgl t slide as entei'Big the driveiv y celiier LG flic coiuMG '*ni1 flGWuig uP and ai Gmid asdiscussed to give that flow and be functional to park the truck 10. Removal of the old curb from the wall by the pool filter equipment attached to the garage 12-ev'oM ~to'~11. Install a new concrete footing in place of the old concrete footing and we curve that to flow nicely ~~with my guidance and Joe and Shannons approval - 4-M ivy fw&r 12. The circle area ran be designed where we install another circular border about 20'outside of theiiuier circle bordei of tliecircle +13. All drainage will be designed by Steven Smith after removal of concrete and dht14. We will be cautious if existing piping and ifanything foes break it will be fixed by Steven SmithsCompany at no charge 15, Polymeric G2 sand shall be used and a wet look sealer 16. Design is flexible and all changes or any little design change is all inclusive 17. The compaction for ibis pi elect shall use i'ne the rieavy bobcats, roller compaciioti machilie, oig iiioi.pampers and vibrator plates and compaction will occur ever few inches as well using water18. All borders in solid hard concrete 19, All grading of'pavers to perfection 20. Paver selection shall be classic cobble or antique classic cobble of choice by Joe and Shannon withdesired pattern 21. Professionai Job overseen by Steven Simth and Ricky g7 pxMtr gbg43~ A~ ++f&e+ ~fotig +Ss-+J~fc + This complete project is $110,00 vrith all material and labor listed above vrith no hidden costs and the drive@ray design to be exact after demo using the mentioned monuments as our guides +XHIHI fk ".„ 2- OE~I'AGEEPAGE 0 NOTE: Existing footprint for pavers then the added walkway and the v ddening ot'he driveway trout thecolumns flowing up on both sides and the right curving nicely as discussed to enter the right rear of theproperty. A step shall be built back by the garbage cans if wanted... 7 Joe and Shannons choice. INVESTMEN (1) $110,000 dollars for total Project ( ~ g (3) $/9,000 at start ofdemo (4) 840,000 after the pavers are delivered l 6vtk 4ZRrlc0 as pv em(5) $30,000 at the completion of the project and everyone happy(6~ofwine included at completion and game of corn5oH lee NOTE: Estimated time to completion is 30 days 'Authorized Signature .t You are hereby authorized to furnish ag materials and labor required to complete the work mentioned in theabove proposal for which Mr. Mrs. joe 5 Shannon Hear agrees to pay the amount mentioned in said proposaland according to the terms there of. Any change orders and additional work shall be adjusted accordingly, iSignature Date: /ljg/j r=',
