SpecialtyBuilders v. W.B. Allen Construction
Filed 2/16/07 Specialty Builders v. W.B. Allen Construction CA4/2
NOT TO BEPUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court,rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinionsnot certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or orderedpublished for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OFAPPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATEDISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| SPECIALTY BUILDERS, INC.,
Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and Respondent,
v.
W. B. ALLEN CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Defendant, Cross-complainant, and Appellant;
AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING PENNSYLVANIA et al.,
Defendants and Respondents;
SURETY COMPANY OF THE PACIFIC,
Cross-Defendant and Respondent. CONSTRUCTION HARDWARE CO.,
Plaintiff, Cross-defendant, and Respondent,
v.
W. B. ALLEN CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
Defendant, Cross-complainant, and Appellant. |
E039052
(Super.Ct.No. RIC 367568)
OPINION
(Super.Ct.No. RIC 388936)
The County of Riverside
|
APPEAL from the Superior Court of RiversideCounty. Stephen D. Cunnison, Judge. Affirmed.
Robinson & Liebaert and Timothy B. Liebaert,for Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Appellant.
Crawford & Banks, Shaaron A. Bangs, andJoshua J. Wes for Plaintiff, Cross-Defendant and Respondent, ConstructionHardware Co.
Wheatley, Scott & Co. and Raymond D. Scottfor Cross-Defendant and Respondent, Surety Company of the Pacific.
Wheatley, Scott & Co., Raymond D. Scott;Ault, Schonfeld, Jordan & Munro and Douglas J. Munro for Plaintiff,Cross-Defendant and Respondent, Specialty Builders, Inc.
1. Introduction
Defendant W.B. Allen Construction, Inc. was theprime contractor on a medical facility. Allenappeals from judgments rendered in favor of two subcontractors, plaintiffs,Specialty Builders, Inc. and Construction Hardware Co.
Construction Hardware supplied the fire-rateddoors and hardware used in the constructionproject. Specialty Builders was the drywall subcontractor. SpecialtyBuilders sued Allen for breach of contract and related causes of action. Allenanswered and filed a cross-complaint. ConstructionHardware also sued Allen for the value of materials it supplied. Allen againanswered and filed a cross-complaint.
The trial focused on whether the drywall and thedoors were installed properly. On appeal, Allen repeatedly discusses theissues of the project's staffing by Specialty Builders and the sequence of thework. We conclude substantialevidence supported the judgments and the court's award of attorney fees infavor of Specialty Building was not unreasonable. We affirm.
2. Factualand Procedural Background
We observe preliminarily that our review of therecord has been hampered by Allen's failure to correlate the documentscontained in appellant's appendix with the numbered exhibits used at trial. Although we have been able to identify many of the documents discussed at trial,it appears a number of exhibits have not been included as part of the record onappeal, making it hard to understand the technical testimony by some of thewitnesses.
Allen obtained the prime construction contract inMay 2000.
On August 21, Allen submitted to ConstructionHardware a purchase order for $64,943 for doors and hardware.
On August 22, Specialty Builders proposed tofurnish labor and materials for metal stud framing and drywall for the sum of$104,950. On August 30, Allen issued a letter of intent to proceed toSpecialty Builders. The letter was accepted by Specialty Builders on October10, â€
| Description | Defendant was the prime contractor on a medical facility. Defendant appeals from judgments rendered in favor of two subcontractors, plaintiffs,Specialty Builders, Inc. and Construction Hardware Co. Construction Hardware supplied the fire rateddoors and hardware used in the constructionproject. Specialty Builders was the drywall subcontractor. Specialty Builders sued Defendant for breach of contract and related causes of action. Defendant answered and filed a cross complaint. Construction Hardware also sued Defendant for the value of materials it supplied. Defendant again answered and filed a cross complaint. The trial focused on whether the dry wall and the doors were installed properly. On appeal, Defendant repeatedly discusses the issues of the project's staffing by Specialty Builders and the sequence of the work. Court conclude substantial evidence supported the judgments and the court's award of attorney fees infavor of Specialty Building was not unreasonable. Court affirm. |
| Rating |
