Regency Midland Construction, Inc. v. Legendary Structures Inc.

Filed 11/7/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

REGENCY MIDLAND B292602 CONSTRUCTION, INC., (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Plaintiff and Respondent, No. BC629322)

v.

LEGENDARY STRUCTURES INC.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Howard Halm, Judge. Affirmed. The Soni Law Firm, M. Danton Richardson, Leo E. Lundberg, Michael A. Long for Defendant and Appellant. Law Office of Parham Hendifar, Parham Hendifar, Michael Diaz for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________

A general contractor named Regency Midland Construction, Inc. hired subcontractor Legendary Structures, Inc. to do the concrete work for a new apartment building. Legendary quit halfway through. Regency and Legendary sued each other. Their dispute turns on the “retention” clause in the contract. The trial court properly granted summary judgment for Regency and dismissed Legendary’s cross-claims. We affirm. First is background. The deal was for about $2 million of concrete work for a new 71-unit apartment building. After Legendary quit, Regency got ANM Construction to finish the concrete job. Regency and Legendary fell to feuding about who owed whom what. The fight was about retention. Regency withheld money from Legendary, citing the retention clause. Before Legendary quit, Regency had paid Legendary about $1 million for its work. That sum was 90% of Legendary’s billings because the contract allowed Regency to withhold 10% of the amount due Legendary as security to ensure Legendary properly completed the job. Regency withheld from Legendary about $125,000, which we call the retention sum. Regency insisted on keeping that sum. Legendary demanded it. That is the main dispute. The trial court granted Regency’s motion for summary judgment, thus allowing Regency to keep the retention sum. Legendary appeals, saying the contract language entitles it to the sum. Our review of this summary judgment ruling is independent. (Conroy v. Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244, 1249.) Summary judgment is not disfavored, but rather a good way to test the merits without the burdens of trial. (Perry v. Bakewell Hawthorne, LLC (2017) 2