Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams

“The papers are to be construed strictly against the moving party and liberally in favor of the opposing party; any doubts regarding the propriety of summary judgment are to be resolved in favor of the opposing party.” (Kulesa v. Castleberry (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 103, 112.)

The pleadings play a key role in a summary judgment motion and serve the purpose of delimiting the scope of summary judgment and framing the outer measure of materiality in a summary RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by DENNIS COOK (Defendant) CRS# 884752005229 in Department 25 judgment proceeding. (White v. Smule (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 346, 354.)

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Ellen Williams (“Plaintiff”)’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) alleges two causes of action against Defendant, for Intentional (Thirty-Fifth) and Negligent Misrepresentation (Thirty Sixth). In this consolidated construction defect case, Plaintiff sues numerous other defendants, some of whom have also filed dispositive motions, who participated in the design and/or building of Plaintiff’s residence.

DISCUSSION “Fraud” means an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant with the intention on the part of the defendant of thereby depriving a person of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury. (Civ. Code § 3294(c)(3).)

The elements of intentional misrepresentation include the same requirements as for fraud. (Aton Ctr., Inc. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co. (2023) 93 Cal. App. 5th 1214, 1245.) “The elements include (1) a representation; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to defraud or induce reliance; (4) reliance was justifiable; (5) and it resulted in damages.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.)

Similarly, “[t]he elements of a negligent misrepresentation are ‘(1) the misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact, (2) without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, (3) with intent to induce another's reliance on the fact misrepresented, (4) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation, and (5) resulting damage.’ [Citation.] Negligent misrepresentation does not require knowledge of falsity.” (Borman v. Brown (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 1048, 1060.)

Defendant alleges that Plaintiff cannot establish one or more of the following elements: (1) false representation, (2) justifiable reliance, and/or (3) causation resulting in damages. Plaintiff responds that Defendant’s evidence that he had a limited and indirect role exclusively through California Stonecraft “to act as or approve architectural design, structural design, direct installation, or act as contractor, project manager, or engineer of record” does not shift the burden to Plaintiff to demonstrate triable issues. (MPA, p. 2 see also UMF 5.)

1. False Representation Prior to Defendant’s involvement in the Project, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant falsely represented to her that “he was a licensed architect and licensed engineer and was qualified to provide the drawings needed for correct and proper installation of the precast stone.” (TAC ¶ 319; see also ¶¶ 99-100.) Defendant, on the other hand, denies ever representing that he held such licenses to Plaintiff or anyone else on the Project. (Am. UMFs 7, 15.) Defendant also asserts that nothing else that occurred during the project on Plaintiff’s home – including his conduct or the work he performed, and the timing of his involvement – could have given Plaintiff or other project participants the impression that he was licensed in these areas.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by DENNIS COOK (Defendant) CRS# 884752005229 in Department 25 (UMFs 8-18.)

It is undisputed that Defendant has never held either of these licenses. (TAC ¶ 320; UMF 6.)

Plaintiff provides admissible evidence that Defendant told her he was licensed. (Am. Response to UMFs 7, 15.) She also provides evidence to controvert his other, related assertions. (Am. Responses to UMFs 8, 10, 13, 16, 18.) Defendant’s assertion that her statements are untrue raises a credibility issue, which cannot be decided on summary judgment or adjudication. (AARTS Productions, Inc. v. Crocker National Bank (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d 1061, 1064.) “[T]he role of the court in summary judgment proceedings is not to weigh the evidence, but to determine whether there exists a triable issue of material fact.” (Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2009) 175 Cal. App. 4th 1306, 1342.)

2. Justifiable Reliance Plaintiff alleges that she relied on Defendant’s purported credentials in allowing him to work on her home. (Am. Williams Decl., ¶ 6; AMF 17.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff cannot show reasonable reliance on any of his alleged representations because his role was limited to work on plans for the balustrade that had already been approved by others prior to his involvement (retained licensed architects, licensed engineers, the general contractor, and California Stonecraft.) (UMFs 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 18.)

However, Plaintiff offers evidence to show that the architectural plans were not approved prior to and in fact changed after, and in fact due to, Defendant’s involvement. (Am. Responses to UMFs 5, 13.)

Thus, Plaintiff also creates a triable issue of material fact as to this element.

3. Causation/Damages Finally, Plaintiff alleges that she “suffered significant damages including, but not limited to, general and special damages, repair costs, loss of use, delays, consultant costs, and other incidental and consequential damages.” (TAC ¶ 324.) This is evidenced by her payment of approximately $65,000 in response to an invoice she received from California Stonecraft for Defendant’s work. (AMFs 8-11.) Defendant counters by arguing that Plaintiff’s “payment theory” does not establish that he personally caused recoverable damages, as he did not invoice Plaintiff directly for his work or receive payment. (Reply, p. 8:3-9; UMFs 20-21.) Further, only Robert Hamblin of California Stonecraft made payment demands for Defendant’s “outsidescope” work. (MPA, p. 5; UMFs 21, 23, citing to Hamblin Decl., ¶¶ 9-10.)

While the Court is dubious of Plaintiff’s argument that one payment for work performed in reasonable reliance upon Defendant’s representation, without more, suffices to show causation of damages, Defendant has effectively conceded this point by including these facts in his Separate Statement and citing them in his argument, and Plaintiff has controverted at least one of these concededly material facts. (See Am. Response to UMF 23.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by DENNIS COOK (Defendant) CRS# 884752005229 in Department 25

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.

OBJECTIONS

The Court has carefully reviewed Defendant’s 12 objections, and to the extent statements are inadmissible, the Court has not considered them. (See., e.g., obj. 6 [“Reed confirmed that Cook had taken over the exterior stone design work after Herbst’s involvement started on or around November or December 2020.”]; obj. 7 [Plaintiff’s opinion that “Cook performed structural engineering calculations and related structural engineering work on the Project.”].) Similarly, where Plaintiff expresses opinions rather than stating facts, as noted in objections 3 and 4, the Court has ignored those opinions unless they are based upon and supported by independent, admissible evidence. The Court declines to rule on Defendant's objections to Plaintiff's evidence as they have no effect on the ruling herein.

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select “Search” 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select “Click to Contest this Ruling” 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select “Proceed”

BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21108716: Janco Industries, Inc VS Williams 08/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by DENNIS COOK (Defendant) CRS# 884752005229 in Department 25

If this TR is contested, counsel may appear personally or via Zoom. Please sign onto Zoomgov.com using credentials below.

Meeting ID: 161 8066 1142 Passcode: 5805