Electric Supplies Distributing Co. v. Imperial Hot Mineral Spa

Opinion

FROEHLICH, J.

*

This lawsuit involved a supplier of electric supplies (Supplier), a construction contractor who purchased the supplies (Con

[134]

tractor), and the holder of a leasehold interest from the County of Imperial (Owner). The Supplier sued for the contract price and reasonable value of materials provided the Contractor and utilized on the job, including as one of its counts a cause of action to foreclose a mechanic’s lien against the leasehold interest of the Owner. Owner cross-complained against Supplier for damages based upon an alleged failure to provide state-required certifications of the electrical equipment and for delay in performance.

All issues raised by the pleadings were resolved by summary judgment in favor of plaintiff Supplier. While the form of the judgment might appear somewhat more broad, the affirmative relief granted is characterized in the respondent-Supplier’s appellate brief as solely the foreclosure of its mechanic’s lien. The Supplier further stipulated in the brief that the recovery of judgment on this single cause of action merged all other theories upon which the complaint was premised, thereby precluding any further action on same. These statements constitute judicial admissions which are binding upon the Supplier.

(Williams

v.

Superior Court

(1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 666, 674 [38 Cal.Rptr. 291];

Arruda

v.

Arruda

(1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 410, 417 [32 Cal.Rptr. 257].) Therefore, on appeal the only questions presented concern the propriety of granting summary judgment (1) foreclosing the mechanic’s lien, and (2) dismissing the Owner’s cross-complaint for damages for failure of performance.

It is well established that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the court may look only to the