Sampson v. The Richardson Group CA4/3

Filed 11/3/14 Sampson v. The Richardson Group CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

FLOYD A. SAMPSON,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G049174

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2010-00384267)

THE RICHARDSON GROUP, INC., et al., OPINION

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from postjudgment orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Geoffrey T. Glass, Judge. Motion to Augment the record. Orders affirmed. Motion denied. Floyd A. Sampson, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Chambers Law Firm and Dan E. Chambers for Defendants and Respondents.

* * *

Plaintiff Floyd A. Sampson, doing business as Sampson Electric, appeals from two postjudgment orders. The first order awarded defendants The Richardson Group (TRG), and its president, Kimm A. Richardson, attorney fees of $27,355 and costs of $3,105.37 for successfully opposing plaintiff’s earlier appeal from the judgment. (Sampson v. The Richardson Group, Inc. (Jan. 30, 2013, G046234) [nonpub. opn.].) The second order denied plaintiff’s motion to consolidate this case with TRG’s two prior declaratory relief actions that had challenged the amount of a stop notice plaintiff served on the owner of a construction project.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The County of Orange contracted with TRG to rehabilitate and expand a county facility. In turn, TRG entered into an agreement with plaintiff to perform electrical work on the project. The electrical subcontract contained a clause authorizing TRG to recover attorney fees in any action on the agreement. A dispute arose over the amount owed to plaintiff for his work on the project. In March 2010, plaintiff served the County with a stop notice, claiming over $202,000 under the electrical subcontract. He also sued TRG, Richardson, and others on the subcontract. The complaint alleged Richardson was personally liable for TRG’s actions under an alter ego theory. Richardson subsequently moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed him from the action. In September, TRG filed a declaratory relief action against plaintiff claiming the amount sought in his stop notice was excessive. (The Richardson Group, Inc. v. Sampson (Super. Ct. Orange County, 2010, No. 30-2010-00411946.) The trial court ruled the declaratory relief action was procedurally defective. Later, TRG voluntarily dismissed this action.