MJB Bixby Construction Co. Lawsuits

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs Pat Cummings & CB Richard Ellis

At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, negligently and
carelessly represented Plaintiffs and negligently and carelessly rendered inappropriate,
inadequate brokerage and management services; negligently and carelessly failed to properly
represent Plaintiffs and to properly protect Plaintiffs' interests by failing to perform numerous
acts, including, but not limited to, failing to properly conduct the appropriate background
investigation of potential tenants, in particular Davi Anthony Rodrigues dba Black Market,
Ayatollah of Gondola; improperly advising Plaintiffs to enter into an industrial real estate lease
with said tenant, in addition to several other inappropriate, inadequate, careless, and negligent
actions or inactions.
11. As a result of the various acts of negligence and carelessness of Defendants, and each
of them, Plaintiffs suffered damages and were deprived of and lost various rights and have
incurred fees and costs related to the prior and continued need to defend/pursue their legal rights
and remedies relating to the above-referenced tenant.

[pddadmin]

Bixby vs Rutherford

6. On August 4, 2009, the RUTHERFORDS stated in writing that they would make no
further payments under the contract until all work was completed, thereby repudiating the express terms
of the contract. On August 7,2009, the RUTHERFORDS were presented with an invoice for contract
work that was due by August 17,2009. On August 18,2009, the RUTHERFORDS were given a notice
of breach for non-payment and were given ten (10) days to cure as provided in their contract. Plaintiff
continued to work, notwithstanding the RUTHERFORDS' breach.
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes that in late August, the RUTHERFORDS contacted the
Sacramento County Building Department and insisted that a Stop Work Order be issued because a
retaining wall to be constructed in their backyard had not been permitted properly. A Stop Work Order
was issued on August 27,2009, citing, "need permits for grading and retaining wall", which prevented
and excused BKBY from performing any further work.
8. On September 3, 2009, Plaintiff terminated the contract with the RUTHERFORDS in

writing for non-payment.

4. That the interests and claims and the estates of all Defendants named herein, and each
13 of them, be determined to be of inferior priority to that of Plaintiff and subj ect to Plaintiffs lien. That

14 the Court further order that the Plaintiff, or any party to this action, may become a purchaser at sale;

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud)

4

17. Cross-complainants refer to and incorporates as though
5
fully set forth herein Paragraphs 1 through 16.
6
18. At or about the time of execution of the building
7
Contract for the addition and other miscellaneous work, BIXBY
8
intentionally and/or negligently misrepresented to RUTHERFORDS,

9

that he was willing to complete all of the addition and/or the
10
repairs for the agreed Contract price of $235,904.28.
11
RUTHERFORDS have since been informed that it is BIXBY's custom
12
and practice to agree on a Contract price and then during the
13
course of construction require owners to agree to significant and
14
multiple Change Orders in order to increase what he will make as
15
profit on each job. Said intent was misrepresented and/or
16
concealed from RUTHERFORDS at the time they agreed to the
17
Contract price and signed the Construction contract.
18
19. When BIXBY made the representations to RUTHERFORDS that
19
he could, and would, complete the Contract for the agreed-upon
20
amount, BIXBY knew that he would be generating Change Orders in
21
the future. BIXBY made the representations with the intent to
22
defraud and induce cross-complainants to enter into the Contract
23
for an agreed amount, knowing that said amount would be increased
24
by Change Orders. At the time RUTHERFORDS entered into the
25
Contract, they did not know the representations made by BIXBY
26

were false and believed they were true and acted in justifiable

[pddadmin]

Posts recently made in this section, as well as copies of the referenced documents, have been moved to the documents discussion area. Link here:
http://publicdocumentdistributors.co...hread.php?t=95

This section is for original documents and description only

[pddadmin]

Public Document Distributors is seeking information in regards to any California State Contractors License Board Cases involving MJB Bixby Construction, or it's corporate owners, Mark J Bixby and Heidi Ann Bixby.

We are seeking any case numbers and dates filed, correspondence between the filer and the Contractors board, and any resolutions reached in the process.

If you have any of the requested material, please respond to this email address:

Admin@PublicDocumentDistributors.com

Or, you may also use US mail:

Public Document Distributors
PO Box 160965
Sacramento, CA 95816-0965

[pddadmin]

A second case filed by the Rutherfords to include a second property that Bixby contracted on in Grass Valley CA

Plaintiff is
informed and believes and on that basis alleges, that defendant,
by and through the conduct herein alleged above, wrongfully
discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of her disabilities.
BIXBY's acts and/or omissions have denied plaintiff her rights
under Civil Code Section 51, to be free of discrimination based
on race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin and/or

disability.

15. When BIXBY talked RUTHERFORD into using BIXBY
2 CONSTRUCTION to complete the repairs at Mill Street, he promised
3 he would be utilizing the same equipment as proposed by the
4 contractor first contacted by RUTHERFORD. That initial contract
5 which was given to Bixby provided for the installation of a 3 Ton
6 HVAC system. BIXBY has acknowledged that the competing estimate
7 provided for a 3 Ton HVAC unit, but intentionally instructed his
8 workers to install a 2 ^^ Ton unit. The 2 H Ton unit is inadequate
9 to cool the building in the summer and has already broken down on
10 at least three occasions, wherein RUTHERFORD has incurred repair

11 costs because BIXBY did not respond to the warranty call.

16. BIXBY has further breached the terms of the Contract by
13 deviating from the approved plans and requests of RUTHERFORD.
14 There were no requests for changes to the mezzanine area, either
15 downstairs or upstairs, yet BIXBY has invoiced RUTHERFORD for
16 over $11,000 in Change Orders when there was no authorization to
17 initiate and/or complete such work. Said conduct further

18 breaches the construction Contract

BIXBY created
26 false invoices and labor charges totaling $35,597.61 for

27 electrical related work. BIXBY has overbilled the electrical by

23. BIXBY's conduct and work product as herein alleged
7 above falls below the standard of care required of licensed
8 general contractors and, as such, was negligent. BIXBY
9 negligently caused damage to the plaintiff by failing to
10 reasonably perform the duties owed RUTHERFORD under the Contract.
11 Before filing this lawsuit, plaintiff retained the services of a
12 licenced inspector, who is also a licenced contractor, to
13 complete and inspect the work performed by BIXBY. In addition to
14 the wrongful conduct alleged hereinabove, the inspection revealed
15 improper use of wood piers used to support the structural
16 foundation and the weakening of the structural system caused by
17 excessive cutting and notching of wooden beams. The report
18 further pointed out below standard patching of the PVC plumbing
19 system and leaking water pipes that had been recently installed.
20 In general, the independent inspection report reveals poor
21 workmanship that falls below the standard of care required, for,

22 but not limited to painting, tile work, molding and drywall.

[Ayatollahgondola]

The State of California, Kamala D Harris Attorney General has filed a suit against Mark and Hiedi Bixby, and MJB Bixby Construction Company to revoke the contractors license and seeks restitution for damages suffered by three complaintants to the cantractors license board.

The case file is too large to upload here, so anyone may request a copy by emailing us at:
admin@PublicDocumentDistributors.com

There will be some excerpts from the complaint filed here soon also, after the image has been rescanned for word processing

[Ayatollahgondola]

Mark Bixby's attorney has filed a request to remove himself as counsel due to a conflict. Bixby's attorney claims he cannot represent Mark Bixby's interests while the state offers a deal to Heidi Bixby in separate. The case has been taken off calendar to consider the motion and give opportunity for Mark Bixby to secure representation.

In other news, Heidi Bixby has created a new corporation, HighMark Builders, and has applied for a separate contractors license. The new corporation uses the same address as MJB Bixby construction, and the same agent for process as MJB Bixby, which also happens to be the same atorney who claims a conflict of interest exists which prevents him from representing both clients in the matter of Attorney General vs MJB Bixby.