Public Document Distributors  

Protect Yourself!........Research Before You Sign Contracts Or Hire Service Companies..... Visit The "Research Services Offered" Topic For Info

Welcome to the Public Document Distributors forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   Public Document Distributors > Main Document Forum > Contractors
FAQForum Rules Members List Calendar Downloads Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-23-2008, 08:40 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default MJB Bixby Construction Co. Lawsuits

This thread will display the lawsuits involving MJB Bixby Construction Co., or Mark J Bixby filed in Sacramento County. Mark Bixby's companies have been involved in over 50 different cases, and several different Contractors License Board Complaints. Each week, we will add up to 3 cases. The cases posted will include Superior Court, Small Claims Court, and Unlawful Detainer Court. We are also tryiing to obtain more records from Unemployment cases and a few other authorities as well, which are not usually included in the count of cases overall, but are worthy of publication
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-23-2008, 08:51 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Rexell Electric Co.

Rexell Electric sued Bixby for damages relating to goods supplied to a jobsite that were secured by a lien on Bixby's Customer's real property.

though fully set forth herein.
Quote:

7
8. Within the last two years, Plaintiff entered into an

8
agreement ("Agreement") in writing with MJB and Does 1 through

9
25, whereby Plaintiff agreed to and did furnish to MJB certain
10 electrical materials, equipment and supplies and MJB and Does
1

11 through 25 agreed to pay for same.

12
9. Pursuant to the Agreement, MJB and Does 1 through 25
13 promised to pay interest on overdue balances at the rate of 1~%
14 per month, plus costs of collection, including reasonable

15
attorneys' fees.

16
10. Plaintiff has fully performed all of the terms and

17
conditions on its part to be performed pursuant to the Agreement.

18
11. Although demand has been made, MJB has failed and

19
refused to pay to Plaintiff any of the amounts due for the

20
materials furnished by Plaintiff to MJB, in breach of the

21
Agreement.

22
12. As a result of MJB's breach of the Agreement, Plaintiff

23
has been damaged in the total sum of not less than $15,181.66,

24
together with interest thereon at the rate of 1~% per month from
Quote:

25
August 25, 2004, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

Attached Files
File Type: pdf scan0002.pdf (389.8 KB, 3541 views)

Last edited by Ayatollahgondola : 06-10-2009 at 10:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-23-2008, 08:59 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Fire Insurance Exchange

This case was filed by Plaintiff Fire Insurance Exchange over another customer of MJB Bixby's who had contracted with MJB to build his house in El Dorado County. MJB Bixby and property owner Marty Depaoli became embroiled in another lawsuit over Depaoli's charges that MJB would not finish the work, and was failing to pay sub-contractors who were filing leins on his property. Fire Insurance Exchange sought to recover compensation for property that was removed from Depaoli's home while it was under MJB Bixby's care. The Depaoli case will be listed in a different post

Quote:
(description of reasons for liability):
Plaintiff refers to, and incorporates herein, the allegations of
its First Cause of Action as if fully set forth. Plaintiff is
informed and believes that the property was removed by the defendants
from the premises intentionally with the intent to deprive Marty and
Allison DePaoli of their property and with the intent to obtain an
unjust enrichment to the defendants.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf scan0004.pdf (337.4 KB, 3648 views)

Last edited by Ayatollahgondola : 06-20-2008 at 10:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-27-2008, 09:43 PM
pddadmin pddadmin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 160
Default MJB Bixby Construction vs Bruce Toelle

Bruce Toelle was one of MJB/Bixby's earliest tenants in a large warehouse. After moving out of the building, MJB Bixby sued Toelle for damages. The first document details the complaint.
The second Document is the Toelle counter-suit, or cross complaint.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf scan0001.pdf (141.9 KB, 3486 views)
File Type: pdf scan0009.pdf (436.3 KB, 3540 views)
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-05-2008, 07:07 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Ernce

This was a long case. The Ernce's contracted with Bixby for a kitchen remodel among other work on a home in Sacramento. The complaint for breach, Intentional misrepresentation, Trespass, and violations of business and professions codes, also included a lein expungement in which a judge ruled intent to defraud by Bixby. Events detailed within these case documents also caused the MJB Bixby Contractors license to be suspended, and a disclosure of violations listed on the State Contractors License Board website. The California State Attorney General prosecuted the violations in conjunction with the California State Contractors Board.

Quote:
14 they were not going to leave, that Bixby knew the law and had every right to be in the Ernces'
15 home because of the signed contract. Concerned for her physical safety, Lynn told Bixby that she
16 would call the police if Bixby did not leave. Bixby told Lynn to go ahead and call the police
Quote:
26 cBixby also yelled repeatedly about how much money the Emces owed Bixby. At first, Bixby
27 claimed the Ernces owed $10,000. By the time the police arrived, Bixby was shouting that the
28 Ernces owed $20,000. Bixby repeatedly threatened to lien the Ernces' home and to sue them,
all the while refusing to leave despite Lynn's repeated and constant requests that Bixby leave. When
2 the officer arrived, he permitted Bixby to remove tools and materials, and stayed with Lynn until
3 ~Bixby left.
DOCSSC1:3060553 -12-
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Ernce complaint.pdf (1.32 MB, 3502 views)
File Type: pdf Ernce bixby denial.pdf (308.8 KB, 3876 views)
File Type: pdf Ernce lien forclosure.pdf (137.5 KB, 3491 views)
File Type: pdf Ernce ansr lein frclsr.pdf (370.5 KB, 3635 views)
File Type: pdf ernce motion.pdf (824.8 KB, 3741 views)

Last edited by Ayatollahgondola : 06-21-2008 at 12:12 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-05-2008, 07:27 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Ernce

This post will have more attachments from the Ernce case. These include a letter from Bixby to Ernce, Ernce petition to court to release lien, and the first judgement to release the first lein, and a notice of related case when the ernces discovered another homeowner suing for substantially similar claims
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Ernce 1st lein release jdgmnt.pdf (167.3 KB, 3459 views)
File Type: pdf Ernce bixby letter.pdf (278.9 KB, 3627 views)
File Type: pdf Ernce leins.pdf (161.3 KB, 3829 views)
File Type: pdf Ernce ptn. to rlse lein.pdf (222.2 KB, 3504 views)
File Type: pdf Ernce rltd cs.pdf (126.6 KB, 3494 views)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-05-2008, 07:38 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Accoustical Engineers

Accoustical Engineers sued Bixby for Breach of Contract, and then to forclose on a lein they placed on a property owned by one of Bixby's customers.


Quote:

Pursuant to the Agreement, AE was entitled to receive for its labor, services, and
20 materials the amount of $6,986.
21 8. Thereafter, during the course of construction, until approximately June, 2004, AE
22 diligently prosecuted work on the Property at the direction and supervision of said Defendants.
23 Although agents of BIXBY have confirmed that they do not dispute AE fully performed all
24 obligations under the Agreement, and although demand for payment was made by AE for its
25 services, Defendants ignored those demands and refused to pay the amounts due.
26 9. AE has duly completed and performed all things to be done, in connection
27 with the terms of the Agreement. Any terms or conditions of the Agreement not performed by
Quote:

28
AE are and have been waived and excused by Defendants.




Attached Files
File Type: pdf Accoust Engnrs cmplt.pdf (273.9 KB, 3577 views)
File Type: pdf Accstl Engnr bxby denial.pdf (202.5 KB, 3588 views)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Public Document Distributors 2011