Preston Pipelines v. JCW-Cypress Home Group
Filed 4/28/06 Preston Pipelines v. JCW-Cypress Home Group CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(San Joaquin)
----
| PRESTON PIPELINES, INC., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JCW-CYPRESS HOME GROUP et al., Defendants and Appellants. |
C046055
(Super. Ct. No. CV015722) |
| ROSS F. CARROLL, Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Respondent, v. JCW-CYPRESS HOME GROUP et al., Defendants, Cross-Defendants and Appellants. |
C047730
(Super. Ct. No. CV015722)
|
This case involves claims by a subcontractor, plaintiff Preston Pipelines, Inc. (Preston), against a contractor, property owners, and a surety, arising out of construction work performed by the subcontractor. The defendants filed cross-complaints. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiff against the contractor (for breach of contract), against the owners (on a quantum meruit theory), and against a surety on a payment bond. The court also entered judgment in favor the contractor, Ross F. Carroll, Inc., (RCI) on its cross-complaint against the owners on various theories (breach of contract and quantum meruit against both owners; open book account and account stated against one owner), and against the surety on the payment bond. The owners -- JCW-Cypress Home Group, a California limited partnership (JCW[1]) and Bella Vista by Paramont, LLC (Bella Vista) -- and the surety, American Motorists Insurance Company (American Motorists), appeal from the judgment. In a separate appeal, which we consolidated on our own motion, the owners and the surety challenge an order awarding attorney's fees.
In the appeal from the judgment (C046055), the owners[2] contend (1) the trial court erred in disregarding the separate corporate forms of Bella Vista and JCW, (2) due process was violated, (3) the trial court should have granted a new trial, (4) the court erred in awarding damages on a quantum meruit claim, holding the owners directly liable to RCI's subcontractor, (5) equitable relief conflicted with contract terms, (6) RCI was estopped from seeking unbilled amounts or reimbursement of discounts taken, and (7) the trial court erred in awarding recovery against a payment bond when no evidence established the existence of the bond.
We shall reverse the judgment with respect to the plaintiff/subcontractor's quantum meruit claim against the property owners (JCW and Bella Vista). We shall otherwise affirm the judgment, because the owners have failed to meet their burden on appeal to demonstrate prejudicial trial court error requiring reversal of the judgment.[3] (Cal. Const, art. VI, § 13; Code Civ. Proc., § 475.)
As to the appeal from the attorney's fee award (C047730), we shall reverse as to plaintiff's award against the owners, but we shall otherwise affirm the order.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
As alleged in the first amended complaint filed June 11, 2002, plaintiff asserted the following claims: (1) Breach of contract against Bella Vista; (2) foreclosure of mechanics' lien against Bella Vista; (3) breach of contract against RCI; (4) foreclosure of mechanics' lien against JCW (with the initials transposed to â€
