Barrera & Associates Construction v. Envisage Construction

RG21085753: Barrera & Associates Construction, VS Envisage Construction 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Setting Aside or Modifying Default Judgment CRS# 256400953445 in Department 512

Tentative Ruling - 08/28/2026 Elizabeth Riles

The Motion for Order NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING ASIDE, VACATING OR MODIFYING DEFAULT JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF AARON R. SCARBROUGH filed by Aaron R. Scarbrough, Sarah J.R. Scarbrough on 06/18/2026 is Granted in Part.

This Tentative Ruling addresses (1) third parties Aaron Scarbrough and Sarah Scarbrough, Trustees of the Aaron and Sarah Scarbrough Living Trust dated December 7, 2018 (“Scarbroughs”) Motion to Set Aside, Vacate or Modifying the Default Judgment in this action entered on 11/20/2025 against defaulted defendants Envisage Construction, Inc. (“Envisage”) and Turner Court Properties, LLC (“Turner Properties”) (the “Motion to Set Aside”) and (2) plaintiff Barrera & Associates Construction, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Petition to Determine the Validity of Scarbroughs’ third party claim

The Court GRANTS IN PART Scarbroughs’ Motion to Set Aside and will modify the 11/10/2025 Default Judgment as to defaulted Defendant Turner Properties, as set forth below.

Plaintiff’s Petition is GRANTED IN PART to the extent consistent with the Court’s Ruling on the Motion to Set Aside.

This action arises out of a project of construction to build residential buildings on two adjacent lots commonly known as 9 Turner Court, Oakland (“Lot 2”) and 10 Turner Court, Oakland (“Lot 1”). Plaintiff contracted separately (i.e., two discreet contracts) to provide grading, excavation and foundation work for each of Lot 1 and Lot 2. Plaintiff served Preliminary Notices pursuant to Civ. Code § 8200 for each of Lot 1 and Lot 2 and recorded two Mechanic’s Liens in different amounts representing work performed on each lot.

Scarbroughs are the current title holders of 10 Turner Court, i.e., Lot 1, which they purchased from Turner Properties on 4/7/2023, while the present action was pending.

Plaintiff filed its Complaint in this action on 1/12/2021. While the Complaint alleges Causes of Action against Envisage, the general contractor on the project, for inter alia, breach of contract, violation of prompt payment penalties and to foreclose on Plaintiff’s two Mechanic’s Liens, the Complaint only alleges a sole cause of action against Turner Properties to foreclose on the two Mechanic’s Liens. On 1/27/2021, Plaintiff filed a copy of a Lis Pendens in this action with the Court. Inexplicably, neither party provides a copy of the recorded Lis Pendens as part of their record.

However, Plaintiff provides a copy of a preliminary title report on 9 Turner Court/Lot 2, a property for which there is no record that Scarbroughs ever owned and which Plaintiff appears to falsely contend Scarbroughs received prior to purchasing 10 Turner Court, indicates that the Lis Pendens was recorded on 1/21/2021. Scarbroughs present evidence in Reply that they RG21085753: Barrera & Associates Construction, VS Envisage Construction 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Setting Aside or Modifying Default Judgment CRS# 256400953445 in Department 512 received a preliminary title report for 10 Turner Court prepared by the same title company that had prepared the preliminary title report for 9 Turner Court some months earlier, which did not disclose either the Mechanic’s Lien recorded as to 10 Turner Court or the Lis Pendens recorded as to both 9 Turner Court and 10 Turner Court in this action, despite the fact that both documents had been recorded.

ANALYSIS OF MOTION TO SET ASIDE

The Court MAINTAINS the 11/10/2026 Default Judgment as to defaulted defendant Envisage.

As to Turner Properties, however, the Court finds that the default Judgment is in error awarding a judgment against it for more than the amounts of the two mechanic’s liens and 7% from the dates of the mechanic’s liens.

Regardless of what evidence Plaintiff presented at the default prove-up hearing, Plaintiff was limited at the default prove-up hearing to the relief against Turner Properties sought in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Any other relief was in excess of the Court’s jurisdiction.

“[CCP § 580(a)] provides that the relief granted to the plaintiff, if there is no answer, cannot exceed that demanded in the complaint. Thus, in all default judgments the demand sets a ceiling on recovery, and a judgment purporting to grant relief beyond that ceiling is void for being in excess of jurisdiction.” (Sass v. Cohen (2020) 10 Cal.5th 861, 863 [quotation marks and brackets omitted].)

Further, “after the default of a defendant has been entered, a complaint is amended in matter of substance as distinguished from mere matter of form, the amendment opens the default, and unless the amended pleading be served on the defaulting defendant, no judgment can properly be entered on the default.” (Sass, supra, 10 Cal.5th at 880-881.)

Here, the sole Cause of Action alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint against Turner Properties was to foreclose on the two mechanic’s liens. Thus, Plaintiff was not entitled to any relief against Turner Properties except that which could be awarded on a mechanic’s lien claim. Thus, the Court could not properly make findings at the default prove-up hearing that Turner Properties was a party to the relevant construction contracts or to award Plaintiff breach of contract or prompt payment penalty remedies or damages against Turner Properties.

This relief was beyond the Court’s jurisdiction to grant because Turner Properties’ default was taken only as to the Complaint. If Plaintiff had wanted additional relief, it needed to seek leave to amend its Complaint and then re-serve Turner Properties with the Amended Complaint. If Turner Properties had again defaulted after service of the Amended Complaint, then Plaintiff would have been entitled to breach of contract or prompt payment remedies against Turner Properties. Additionally, Plaintiff has at no time requested the Court make a finding that Envisage and Turner Properties are alter egos, and the Court has accordingly made no such finding.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21085753: Barrera & Associates Construction, VS Envisage Construction 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Setting Aside or Modifying Default Judgment CRS# 256400953445 in Department 512 Further, in terms of the remedy of foreclosing on 10 Turner Court to pay Plaintiff’s default judgment against Turner Properties, Plaintiff is only entitled to recover from such a sale at most the amount of $66,892.09, plus 7% pre-judgment from 10/20/2020, the date of the mechanic’s lien on 10 Turner Court/Lot 1.

Plaintiff signed separate and distinct contracts as to each of 9 Turner Court and 10 Turner Court and then signed separate and distinct mechanic’s liens as to each of 9 Turner Court and 10 Turner Court. Thus, while Plaintiff is still entitled to a judgment against Turner Properties in the total amount of the two mechanic’s liens plus 7% interest from the date of each mechanic’s lien, it can only enforce by judicially compelled sale of 10 Turner Court the amount of $66,892.09 plus 7% interest from 10/20/2020.

The Court calculates the 7% interest from 10/20/2020 to the 8/28/2026 date of hearing on this Motion as $27,417.76 [($66,892.09 x 7%)/365 x 2,137 days = $27,417.76.]

The Court did not find the Scarbrough’s arguments why no portion of Plaintiff’s mechanic’s lien claim as to 10 Turner Court may be enforced against them to be persuasive. Specifically, the Court finds that all of Plaintiff’s Preliminary Notice and Mechanic’s Lien as to 10 Turner Court and the Lis Pendens in this action where all properly served on Turner Properties such that Turner Properties had actual notice of all these necessary documents.

As to the Preliminary Notices, Scarbroughs argue that Plaintiff was required to serve Turner Properties at the address then listed in Turner Properties’ corporate documents on file with the California Secretary of State, i.e., Turner Properties’ “place of business.” Civ. Code § 8108 alternatively allowed Plaintiff to serve Turner Properties at the address shown on the direct contract, building permit or construction trust deed. Instead, Plaintiff served the preliminary notice on Turner Properties at Envisage’s place of business. Nevertheless, there is evidence in the record that the underlying construction contracts were signed by defendant Mark Rowson on behalf of both Envisage and Turner Properties. Thus, service of the preliminary notices at Envisage’s business address was reasonably certain to provide actual notice to Turner Properties.

Further, during the four years that Turner Properties actively litigated this action before its default was taken on 9/30/2025, Turner Properties never contended that it had not been duly served with any of the Preliminary Notices, the Mechanic’s Liens or the Lis Pendens. (See e.g., Bowles Declaration filed on 10/17/2025 contesting Plaintiff’s application for default judgment against Turner Properties.) Although Scarbroughs cite to cases requiring strict compliance with the preliminary notice requirements, other cases state that the notice statutes should be read with an eye to protecting mechanic’s lien claimants. (Rental Equipment, Inc. v. McDaniel Builders, Inc. (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 445, 449.)

On the present record, the Court finds that Turner Properties had actual receipt of the preliminary notice. Therefore, the Court finds the statutory requirements have been met.

The Scarbroughs also argue that the Mechanic’s Lien for 10 Turner Court was defective because they were not served within 90 days of the date on which Plaintiff alleges that it completed its work on the project. However, as Plaintiff points out in Opposition, both Civ. Code §§ 8412 and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21085753: Barrera & Associates Construction, VS Envisage Construction 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Setting Aside or Modifying Default Judgment CRS# 256400953445 in Department 512 8414 provide that a mechanics lien must be recorded within “[n]inety days after completion of the work of improvement,” and Civ. Code § 8050 defines a “‘work of improvement’ as “the entire structure or scheme of improvement as a whole.”

Here, the work of improvement was the construction of residential buildings on lots, not merely the grading, excavation and foundation work performed by Plaintiff. The Court does not find the Scarbroughs’ proffered reading of Civil Code § 8050 made in Reply persuasive. It is unlikely, the work of improvement would have been completed shortly after Plaintiff’s work, because Plaintiff’s work was almost certainly some of the earliest work of improvement. Scarbroughs present no evidence regarding when the scheme of improvement of Lot 1 was completed as a whole or whether Turner Properties ever recorded a notice of completion or cessation.

Finally, the Court finds that the Lis Pendens was adequately served on Turner Properties on 1/19/2021. Scarbroughs cite to Carr v. Rosien (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 845 and J&A Mash & Barrel, LLC v. Sup.Ct. of Fresno County (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 1 for the proposition that CCP § 405.22 requires the Lis Pendens to be served on the owner of the property subject to the Lis Pendens at the owner’s address listed in the County assessor’ roll. The Court does not find this argument persuasive, particularly where Scarbroughs have cited to no case law finding that service of a Lis Pendens on a corporate owner’s agent for service of process does not satisfy the requirements of § 405.22.

Here, Turner Properties has never disputed receipt of the Lis Pendens or sought to expunge the Lis Pendens during the four years it was a party to this litigation. (See Carr, supra, 238 Cal.App.4th at 855.) Further J&A Mash & Barrel, supra, 74 Cal.App. 5th at 29, states in relevant part: “we resolve that question of law by concluding substantial compliance satisfies the mailing requirement of section 405.22.”

Defendant cites to case law stating that a Lis Pendens does not constitute process. However, nothing in that case, Woodcourt II Limited v. McDonald Co. (1981) 119 Cal.App.3d 245, supports the proposition that a lis pendens may not be served on a corporate agent for service of process. As a practical matter, the entire purpose of an agent for service of process is to allow for the service of legal papers on a corporate entity with the understanding that agent should be readily available to accept service and to promptly transmit those legal documents to his or her principal. The Lis Pendens served by Plaintiff is on its face obviously a legal document of the type that an agent for service of process would promptly provide to the agent’s corporate principal.

Further, the Court does not find that J&A Mash & Barrel, supra, at 26, mandates that a lis pendens may only be served on an owner at the address shown in the assessor’s roll to the exclusion of service at another address that reasonably certain to result in actual service. Instead, service at the address listed in the assessor’s roll creates a presumption of adequate service even if the address listed in the assessor’s roll is incorrect. Scarbroughs present no evidence that Plaintiff’s service on Turner Properties’ agent for service was defective either because the agent

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21085753: Barrera & Associates Construction, VS Envisage Construction 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Setting Aside or Modifying Default Judgment CRS# 256400953445 in Department 512 was no longer at that address or that the purported agent for service was not actually Turner Properties’ agent for service at the time of service of the Lis Pendens. Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s service of the Lis Pendens on Turner Properties’ agent for service of process substantially complied with CCP § 405.22. (J&A Mash & Barrel, supra.)

Wherefore, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Scarbroughs’ Motion to Set Aside.

The Court ORDERS that the Default Judgment in this Action should be MODIFIED to provide that (1) the damages awarded to Plaintiff against Turner Properties be limited to the amount of the two mechanic’s liens on 9 Turner Court and 10 Turner Court plus interest at the rate of 7% from the operative dates of the mechanic’s liens; and that Plaintiff may only recover a total of $94,309.85 [$66,892.09 + $27,417.76 interest = $94,309.85] from the judicially ordered sale of 10 Turner Court.

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to provide the Court with a [Proposed] Amended Judgment consistent with the analysis above within ten (10) days of the date on which the final Order on this Motion enters the record. Plaintiff shall serve the Scarbroughs with a copy of the [Proposed] Amended Judgment at least three (3) days before submission of the [Proposed] Amended Judgment to the Court.

The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff’s Petition to Determine the Validity of the Scarbrough’s Claims to the extent consistent with the Court’s Ruling on the Motion to Set Aside above.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE RULINGS

PLEASE NOTE: If any party contests the tentative ruling, the hearing on the motion will occur remotely via the court's own video-conferencing system.

Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing date.

To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:

First, the party must notify Department 512, by email at Dept512@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.

Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

RG21085753: Barrera & Associates Construction, VS Envisage Construction 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Setting Aside or Modifying Default Judgment CRS# 256400953445 in Department 512 Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application.

TO CONNECT TO ZOOM:

Join the meeting using the following link: https://www.zoomgov.com/j/16057661931 Join the meeting by Phone:

Meeting ID: 160 5766 1931

1 669 254 5252, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 1 669 216 1590, 16057661931# US (San Jose) 833 568 8864 US Toll-free