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
Register 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, 955 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, 1100 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, 940 views)
File Type: pdf scan0009.pdf (436.3 KB, 938 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, 870 views)
File Type: pdf Ernce bixby denial.pdf (308.8 KB, 1217 views)
File Type: pdf Ernce lien forclosure.pdf (137.5 KB, 913 views)
File Type: pdf Ernce ansr lein frclsr.pdf (370.5 KB, 1117 views)
File Type: pdf ernce motion.pdf (824.8 KB, 1103 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, 873 views)
File Type: pdf Ernce bixby letter.pdf (278.9 KB, 927 views)
File Type: pdf Ernce leins.pdf (161.3 KB, 1203 views)
File Type: pdf Ernce ptn. to rlse lein.pdf (222.2 KB, 919 views)
File Type: pdf Ernce rltd cs.pdf (126.6 KB, 935 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, 900 views)
File Type: pdf Accstl Engnr bxby denial.pdf (202.5 KB, 1103 views)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-05-2008, 07:43 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Capital Commercial

Capital commercial sued Bixby for Breach of Contract, and to forclose on a lein they placed on the property owned by one of Bixby's customers. This was the same Customer as the Accoustical Engineers case


Quote:

20. On February, 10, 2004, Plaintiff entered into a written agreement with
Defendant BIXBY CONSTRUCTION, wherein Plaintiff agreed to furnish and install
flooring materials to the Project. A true and correct copy of the agreement is attached
hereto as Exhibit "B". In exchange for Plaintiff's agreement to furnish and install flooring
materials, Defendant BIXBY CONSTRUCTION agreed to pay Plaintiff the sum of
$36,000.00.
21. Pursuant to said agreement, Plaintiff provided labor, materials and services
for the Project in question and did so pursuant to the terms of the contract. The labor,
materials and services were actually used in the work of improvement.
22. Plaintiff has performed all of the conditions, covenants and promises under
the contract on its part to be performed.
23. Although demand therefore has been made since the materials and labor
were furnished as alleged above, only a portion of the contract price has been paid, and
the sum of $11,000.00 is now due and owing to Plaintiff. Defendant breached said
Quote:

contract by refusing, and continuing to refuse to pay amounts due and owing.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf capital commercial.pdf (412.8 KB, 927 views)
File Type: pdf capital commercial response.pdf (199.3 KB, 892 views)
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-17-2008, 05:00 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default MJB Bixby vs Ed Brenner

This case was filed by Bixby naming his former attorney as plaintiff. Within the complaint was an allegation that Bixby performed construction work for Brenner as an offset for legal fees. Brenner's answer to the complaint alleged Bixby lacked a contractors license and lacked standing to sue for those, and that Bixby did not pay legal fees due to inability to pay.

Quote:
AS A FURTHER, SEPARATE AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO THE
23 COMPLAINT ON FILE HEREIN, AND TO EACH ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION
24 CONTAINED THEREIN, this answering defendant alleges that one plaintiff is not a
25 licensed contractor and another plaintiff has failed to comply with California's
26 Contractors License Law, including without limitation California Civil Code Business
27 & Professions Gode section 7159, and plaintiffs may not therefore maintain the
28 contract claims set forth in the Complaint.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf MJB Bixby vs Brenner.pdf (292.5 KB, 892 views)
File Type: pdf MJB Bixby vs Brenner cross cmplt.pdf (113.8 KB, 947 views)
File Type: pdf MJB Bixby Vs Brenner answer.pdf (342.8 KB, 881 views)

Last edited by Ayatollahgondola : 06-21-2008 at 12:24 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-17-2008, 05:06 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default MJB Bixby vs Paige M hibbert

This complaint filed by Bixby named another of his former attorneys as defendant.

Quote:
Despite having voluntarily accepted the trust and confidence of Plaintiff, Defendants
engaged in outrageous, unprivileged conduct, which was ignited when Mr. Hibbert
and Mr. Bixby had an argument over the amount of money Mr. Hibbert was to pay
Mr. Bixby for performing improvements to the Hibbert family business located on
Arden Way in Sacramento County.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Hibbert.pdf (631.1 KB, 932 views)
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Hibbert demurrer.pdf (454.5 KB, 1534 views)

Last edited by Ayatollahgondola : 06-21-2008 at 12:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 06-17-2008, 05:09 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default MJB Bixby vs Raphael Yee

This case was filed by Bixby to forclose on a lein he placed on Yee's property for contract work related to mold.

Quote:
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants as follows:
5 1. Against Defendants Yee in the amount of more than One Hundred Four Thousand dollars
6 ($104,000) together with interest thereon at the rate often percent (10%) per annum from and after
7 February 14,2002;
8 2. For costs of suit incurred herein;
9 3. For judgment as against all Defendants that Ninety-Five Thousand Five Hundred and 51/1 00
10 dollars ($95,500.51) be adjudged to be a lien on the Real Property described in Exhibit A hereto and that
11 said land be adjudged and decreed to be sold by the Sheriff of the County of Sacramento, State of
12 California, in accordance with the laws and practices of this Court, and that the proceeds of sale be
13 applied to satisfy the costs of sale, the costs of these proceedings, and Plaintiffs claim and judgment;
14 4. That the interests and claims and the estates of all Defendants named herein, and each of
15 them, be determined to be of inferior priority to that of Plaintiff and subject to Plaintiffs lien. That the
16 Court further order that the Plaintiff, or any party to this action may become a purchaser at sale;
Attached Files
File Type: pdf MJB Bixby vs Yee.pdf (279.5 KB, 886 views)

Last edited by Ayatollahgondola : 06-20-2008 at 10:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 06-17-2008, 05:15 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default MJB Bixby vs First american Property Casualty

This case filed by the insurance company for one of Bixby's Contracting business customers, alleged Fraud, misrepresentation, Violation of unfair competition law, negligence, and breach of contract.

Quote:
25. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that BIXBY and DOES 1 through 50. by
6 way of further example and not by way of limitation. agreed to undertake specific work
7 in the INSURED HOMES, represented to the INSUREDS and FIRST AMERICAN that
8 they had in fact performed specific tasks, and thereafter submitted invoices to the
9 INSUREDS and FIRST AMERICAN for the costs and labor associated with this work,
10 when in fact BIXBY and DOES 1 through 50 knew that each of these representations
11 were false, that they had not, nor had the ever intended to, perform all or some of these
12 specific tasks, and that their invoices were fraudulent
.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs first American.pdf (531.0 KB, 846 views)

Last edited by Ayatollahgondola : 06-21-2008 at 12:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 06-17-2008, 11:30 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default MJB Bixby vs Robert Doty

This case was a rather large, and all encompassing action brought by the Doty's as plaintiffs against Bixby as defendant, for violations of business and professions code section 17200. The Doty's hired MJB Bixby for some home repairs which were alleged to have been faulty. An alleged faulty roof repair led to mold growths which were believed to have inflicted health ailments upon Mrs Doty. During the prosecution of the case, the Doty's gathered evidence of MJB Bixby and Mark Bixby's business practices. The case takes up several volumes in the public file, and includes transcripts, declarations, and evidentiary items. The case was settled with MJB Bixby paying the Doty's $185,000.00, and included the Permanent Injunction already uploaded onto this forum.

Quote:
5. I found that Mr. Bixby had a duplicitous nature to his personality. In the
13 beginning, Mr. Bixby was very charming and gracious, even excessively so. For lack of
14 a better word, he was very "chummy" and behaved - from the very start - in a way that
15 would have suggested we had been confidents for a number of years. That was especially
16 true when Mr. Bixby was negotiating and entering into the contract with Greg. Later, as
17 expressed below, Mr. Bixby became very angry, accusatory, confrontational, threatening,
18 and verbally abusive. I also witnessed Mr: Bixby in a state of heightened agitation
19 toward his workers, demonstrating very physically threatening behavior while he was
20 screaming, yelling, and waving his arms while approaching each of them quickly and
21 forcefully. After my fIrst threatening encounter with Mr. Bixby, it became increasingly
22 diffIcult to reach Mr. Bixby by phone. When I did manage to reach him, he was
23 belligerent and argumentative, digressing frequently into unreasonable and purely
24 fantastic accusations.
-2-
DECLARATION OF BRIAN CARVER
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby-Doty ltrs.pdf (767.1 KB, 867 views)
File Type: pdf Declar of B Carver.pdf (414.3 KB, 902 views)
File Type: pdf Declar of G Carver.pdf (479.2 KB, 900 views)
File Type: pdf Bixby ltr to Carver.pdf (1.11 MB, 797 views)

Last edited by Ayatollahgondola : 06-20-2008 at 10:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 06-17-2008, 11:38 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default MJB Bixby vs. Robert Doty

This reply space is to accomodate more uploaded documents from the Doty case.

Quote:
My partner called Mr. Bixby on his cell phone. This time he answered. He seemed
shocked to hear from Brian. To summarize their brief discussion: Mr. Bixby informed
my partner that he had already placed a lien on the property and said that at no time
would he be interested in discussing the billings any further. He became quite belligerent
at this time, stating that [fwe did not pay the amount currently owed (how much this was,
of course, he would not say) then we would end up paying $15,000.00 or more. When
my partner inquired what this $15,000.00 amount was, Mr. Bixby's exact words were,
"Well, just don't pay and you'II find out" My partner pressed him again to explain, and
Mr. Bixby only replied that we would see.
Note: As it turns out, Mr. Bixby had filed a mechanic's lien on the property on
Thursday, February 15,2001, the day after the meeting he had scheduled and at which he
was conspicuously absent.

Quote:
The incident began after I had been in the exercise room about 40 minutes. I had
finished using an exercise bike, and walked to the water fountain, when Mr. Bixby
approached me. I did not recognize him immediately. He stated, "You are fucking with
the wrong person. You do not know who you are dealing with. I will make you very sorry
for what you are doing."
I did not hear him clearly, and ~sked him to repeat what he said. He repeated his
statement, finishing by calling me "dick." I began to realize who he is. I told him my
name is "Robeli." At that point, he said, "No, it's dick. You are an asshole."
I told him I intend to assert my rights. He stated his position, repeatedly calling me
"dick." I told him he had called me "dick" 12 or 13 times, and asked him to stop. He
stood very close to me. He then told me, "You are in my personal space, dick. If you
touch me, I will make you very sorry."
Attached Files
File Type: pdf G Carver stmnt of facts.pdf (3.68 MB, 818 views)
File Type: pdf Doty vs Bixby Del Rio stmnt.pdf (224.8 KB, 899 views)

Last edited by Ayatollahgondola : 07-20-2008 at 10:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 06-17-2008, 11:46 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default MJB Bixby vs Robert Doty

this reply is to accomodate even more document uploads from the Doty case

Quote:
30. When my wife and I raised questions or complaints about the work of Mr.
Bixby and Bixby Inc., Jvfr. Bixby became extremely aggressive, threatening, intimidating,
harassing and hostile toward my wife and me on several occasions. On those occasions,
among other things, :Mr. Bixby used highly abusive and threatening language toward us.
31. For example, attached to this Declarationas Exhibit 10 are Michelle's
handwritten notes of telephone conversations. As the notes indicate, in one conversation,
1'Ir. Bixby threatened to "bury" and "kill" me. I was standing in the yard talking with :M:r.
Bixby on the cellphone. Michelle informed me that she could overhear:M:r. Bixby's
statements clearly (as did a neighbor standing in the yard) because:M:r. Bixby was
screaming so loudly on the telephone.
32. Those and other threats by Mr. Bixby against my wife and me deeply disturbed
and distressed us. My wife and I took, and continue to take,:Mr. Bixby's threats very
-8-
DECLARATION OF DOUG HAWKINS
Attached Files
File Type: pdf declar of Doug Hawkins.pdf (946.0 KB, 793 views)
File Type: pdf Bixby ltr to Carver.pdf (1.11 MB, 884 views)
File Type: pdf declar of Mark Pheatt.pdf (821.0 KB, 894 views)
File Type: pdf declar of Paul Cannon.pdf (1.62 MB, 839 views)

Last edited by Ayatollahgondola : 06-20-2008 at 10:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 06-17-2008, 11:51 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default MJB Bixby vs Robert Doty

This reply is to allow for more uploaded documents from the Doty case

Quote:
7. Mr. Bixby and Bixby lnc. did not complete the work under the contract in a
timely manner or satisfactorily. The work, which was to have taken only three to four
weeks, as represented to us by Mr. Bixby and Bixby Inc., actually extended over a five month
period from May 2001 to October 2001. Despite multiple requests that the work
be completed within the time period represented, Mr. Bixby and Bixby Inc. did not
complete the work within that time
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Declar of Robert Rosson.pdf (1.13 MB, 937 views)
File Type: pdf declar of Sabina Moyer.pdf (2.42 MB, 871 views)
File Type: pdf Declar of Thomas Lysaght.pdf (1.02 MB, 914 views)

Last edited by Ayatollahgondola : 06-21-2008 at 12:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 06-25-2008, 07:48 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default MJB bixby vs Doty Cmplt pt 1

This is the copy of the Doty first amended complaint against MJB Bixby, and Mark Bixby. Because it is so large, it is broken into two parts.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf MJB Bixby vs Doty cmplt pt 1.pdf (1.58 MB, 824 views)
File Type: pdf MJB Bixby vs Doty cmplt pt 2.pdf (1.24 MB, 936 views)
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 06-25-2008, 07:52 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default MJB Bixby vs Depaoli

This is from El Dorado County

Quote:
Defendants allege that if they did not perform the tc.'fmS and conditions of any part of any
contract with plainuft: it was because such penormance was prevented. by plaintiff.
Quote:
Defendants allege that the claim for mechanic's lien is willfUlly overstated and that
defendal1ts have performed all obligations owing on their part to be perfonncd, including
pay:menr for work.
Defendants allege that there are valid offsets, counter~c]aims and back charges against
j plaimitfsubstantially in excess of the amount sought by Plaintiff
!
23 I TWENTY-SECONP AFF]RMATJV~ DEFEN~
24 i Defendants allege that plaintiff materially breached the contract referred to in the
I
25 , Complaint by failing to perfcnn diligently and in a workmanlike manner the renns and
26 i conditions ofthe Contract and its obligations thereunder therehy excusing any purported
!
27 I bn:aches of me Contract by defendants, and each of "them
-'}8 II
-4:
MARTY AND
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Depaoli premesis liability.pdf (249.4 KB, 822 views)
File Type: pdf MJB Bixby vs Depaoli lien frclsr.pdf (424.2 KB, 888 views)
File Type: pdf MJB Bixby vs Depaoli cross cmplt.pdf (744.7 KB, 1110 views)
File Type: pdf MJB Bixby vs Depaoli ansr.pdf (298.0 KB, 933 views)

Last edited by Ayatollahgondola : 06-25-2008 at 08:27 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 06-25-2008, 07:58 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default MJB Bixby vs CalPly

MJB Bixby vs CalPly


within the last two years, Defendants, and each of
them, became indebted to Plaintiff in the agreed sum of for
$3,635.02 for the furnishing of acoustical ceiling
materials, roofing materials, drywall and related materials
delivered to the Defendants, and each of them, by Plaintiff;
and Defendants, and each of them, then and there agreed to
pay the amount.
8. A copy of the document evidencing the indebtedness
of Defendants, and each of them, to Plaintiff is attached
hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by
reference.
9. Neither the whole nor any part of the above sum has
been paid, although demand therefor has been made, and there
is now due, owing and unpaid the sum of $3,635.02 together
with interest thereon at the legal rate from March 6, 2003,

until paid.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Calply.pdf (497.6 KB, 848 views)
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Calply ansr.pdf (115.7 KB, 829 views)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06-25-2008, 07:59 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby Vs Monroe and Olito

Bixby Vs Monroe and Olito
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Monroe and Olito.pdf (381.4 KB, 872 views)
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 06-25-2008, 08:01 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default MJB Bixby vs Losoya

MJB Bixby vs Losoya

Quote:
Plaintiff itself has breached the contract sued upon in several respects
including but not limited to the following: failing to perform repairs and
work called for under the contract in a substantial and workmanlike fashion;
failing to complete repairs and work called for under the contract; failing
to have contracted for repairs properly approved and reinspected by a termite
and pest company as called for under the contract; overcharging for various
items and repairs. By reason of plaintiff's breaches of the contract,
plaintiff's claims for amounts allegedly due and owing are barred or,
alternatively, are reduced by an amount according to proof at trial.
F. By reason of plaintiff's breach of the contract as set forth in paragraph
4E above, the allegations are incorporated hereby this reference, answering
defendants and each of them are entitled to an offset in an amount according
to proof at trial as against the amount which plaintiff claims is due and
owing to it under the contract.
G. As a result of plaintiff's failure to perform and/or complete work in a
substantial and workmanlike fashion and the other breaches and failures of
performance on the part of plaintiff as alleged in 4E above, there is a
failure of consideration to support performance on the part of these
answering defendants, and each of them, to pay any amounts alleged by
plaintiff to be due and owing under the contract.H. The provisions of the contract by which plaintiffs charged defendants the
amount of $1,600 for repairing earth-to-wood contacts and $1,600 for debris
removal are unenforceable in that these charges were unconscionable at the
time the contract was made in that they were grossly in excess of any
reasonable amount to be charged for the work in question and bore no
reasonable relation to the true value of the services provided for.
I. By reason of the grossly excessive overcharges for items of work as
described in 4E above, and the breaches on contract described in
Paragraph 4H, there is a failure of consideration to support plaintiff's
claims for amounts due and owing for such work.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf MJB bixby vs Lasoya.pdf (259.4 KB, 829 views)
File Type: pdf MJB Bixby vs Lasoya ansr.pdf (197.7 KB, 844 views)

Last edited by Ayatollahgondola : 06-25-2008 at 08:23 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 06-25-2008, 08:02 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Mark and Heidi Bixby vs Barbara Morgan

Mark and Heidi Bixby vs Barbara Morgan

Quote:
Asa proximate resul t of the negligence of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff was
11 hurt and injured in his health, strength and activity, sustaining irtiury to his body, and shock and
12 irtiury to his nervous system and person, all of which injuries have caused and continue to cause
13 plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiff is informed and
14 believes, and thereon alleges, that said injuries will result in some permanent disability to
15 plaintiff, all to his general damage in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this
16 court.
Quote:
As a direct and proximate result of the said negligence and carelessness of the
27 defendants, and each of them, plaintiff HEIDI BIXBY has been deprived of the services and
28 consortium of her husband by reason of his inability to carry on his usual duties. Plaintiff is
informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges that said injuries to her
husband are of a permanent nature, and that plaintiff will be deprived of his services, love,
affection, comfort, care, and society for a substantial period in the future, all to plaintiffs further
damage in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this cOUli,and any and all prejudgment
interest from the date of said injuries.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Mark and Heidi Bixby vs Barbara Morgan.pdf (270.9 KB, 878 views)

Last edited by Ayatollahgondola : 06-25-2008 at 08:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-25-2008, 08:04 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default MJB Bixby vs Pacific Coast Building Supply

MJB Bixby vs Pacific Coast Building Supply

Quote:
Between January 20,2003 and April 9, 2003, defendants, and each of
them, became indebted to plaintiff' on an open book account in the sum of$7,349.53 for
building materials and related supplies furnished to defendant MJB/BIXBY, at its request,
and being so indebted, promised to pay said sum on request.
5. Defendants agreed in writing to pay service charges of eighteen percent
per annum on all delinquent balances, and said service charges have accrued from May 1,
Quote:
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays for judgment against the defendants
MJBIBIXBY CONSTRUCTION, INC., a California corporation, MARK JONATHAN
BIXBY, and DOES ONE through TEN, and each of them, as follows:
L Principal in the sum of $6,380.65 together with service charges in the sum
of$341.27 which have accrued up to August 6,2003, and further service charges at the rate
of eighteen percent per annum;
2. For attorney's fees in the sum of$I,257.IO, or in such other reasonable
Attached Files
File Type: pdf MJB Bixby vs Pacific coast bldg supply.pdf (265.3 KB, 839 views)
File Type: pdf MJB Bixby vs Pacific coast bldg ansr.pdf (122.6 KB, 829 views)

Last edited by Ayatollahgondola : 06-25-2008 at 08:15 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-20-2008, 10:45 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Rosson

Rosson vs Bixby

Quote:
MARK J. BIXBY, individually and dba MJB/BIXBY CONSTRUCTION,
21 INC. and MJB/BIXBY CONSTRUCTION, INC. failed and refused to complete its
22 performance as required by the CONTRACT. Such work as was performed by MARK J.
23 BIXBY, individually and dba MJB/BIXBY CONSTRUCTION, INC. and MJB/BIXBY
24 CONSTRUCTION, INC. pursuant to the CONTRACT was not performed In a
25 workmanlike manner and in accordance with the standards of the industry.
26 III
27
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Rosson.pdf (347.7 KB, 918 views)
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-20-2008, 11:51 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default

Bixby vs Wirsing

Quote:
5. Bixby and Wirsing discussed the possibility of
14 establishing a partnership relationship for development of the
15 Product, but no specif ic terms were discussed with respect to
16 rights and duties of the parties, nature of each party's ownership
17 interest or the amount of each party's contribution of cash,
18 services or other valuable consideration. No agreement was reached
19 as a result of such discussions, although Bixby did promise that in
20 the event the Product could be successfully manufactured and
21 marketed, he would purchase a new automobile for both Wirsing and
22 Crawford.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Wirsing.pdf (283.1 KB, 920 views)
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-21-2008, 12:00 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Mages

Bixby vs Mages


Quote:
As a proximate result of the said negligence of the defendants, and each of
them, plaintiff was hurt and injured in his health, strength and activity, sustaining injury
to his body and shock and injury to his nervous system and person, all of which said
injuries have caused and continue to cause plaintiff great mental, physical and nervous
pain and suffering. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that said
injuries will result in some permanent disability to plaintiff, all to plaintiffs general
damage in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.
X
As a further proximate result of the said negligence of the defendants, and
each of them, plaintiff was required to and did employ physicians and surgeons to
examine, treat and care for plaintiff, and did incur medical and incidental expenses. The
exact amount of such expense is unknown to plaintiff at this time and plaintiff will ask
leave to amend this pleading to set forth the exact amount thereof when the same is
ascertained by plaintiff, or in accordance with proof at time of trial.
As a further proximate result of the said negligence of the defendants, and
each of them, plaintiff was prevented from attending to plaintiffs usual occupation, and
plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that plaintiff will thereby be
prevented from attending to said usual occupation for a period of time in the future, all
to plaintiffs damage in an amount which is not now known. Plaintiff will ask leave to
amend plaintiffs pleading to set forth the exact amount thereof when the same is
ascertained by plaintiff, or in accordance with proof at time of trial.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Mages.pdf (202.1 KB, 849 views)
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:22 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby - Emil and June Relat documents

These were private Documents made available to PDD for viewing in an action that homeowners Relat took against Bixby with the California State contractors board for Job Abandonment


Quote:

Mr. Mark Bixby
Contractor License No. 571821
MJB Bixby Construction Inc.

5852 88th St
# 800
Sacramento, California 95828
Subject: Demand for Reimbursement of Costs Incurred Due to Fault of MJB
Bixby Construction Inc.
This letter is to demand reimbursement from you and MJB Bixby Construction Inc
of costs we incurred due to your inability or refusal to complete items required by
the contract with us or because of faulty workmanship that required us to have
the work redone by another contractor. On May 24, 2004, we entered into a
contract with MJB Bixby Construction Inc and you for constructing a replacement
guest house on our property at 1020 San Ramon Way. We have paid all but
$4,225 of the total contract amount of $75,985.
From about January to June, 2005, we noticed work was not being completed
and that there were problems with construction. You were unresponsive to our
requests to correct and complete the work. In May 2005, your employee
removed his tools and left the work site. These actions constituted abandonment
and constructive termination of the job. On June 6, we notified you of the
termination so that we could hire another contractor to complete and correct
deficiencies in the work. In November 2005, the guest house construction was
completed and we have now been able to calculate costs that should have been
completed by you as required by the contract. We now demand that you
reimburse us for such costs in the amount of $38,980.00 minus the $4,225. A list
of structural defects and incomplete work with the basis and cost of
reimbursement is attached to this letter (See Attachment).
Please submit $34,755.00 by January 15, 2006, to Emil and June Relat to the
address shown below. Upon receipt of payment, we will withdraw our claim
against MJB Bixby Construction Inc filed at the State Contractor License Board
(File No. NA 2004 17831).
If you have any questions in this matter, contact our daughter Cathy Crothers, or our son Ken Relat. We
have delegated authority to them to act as our agents and manage this claim on
our behalf.

SinCe!el~

~.At, !fJ~,1..-f'L-


7UV

JU wvt!JLPJ!t;:;v

jt=mil

and June Relat
1020 San Ramon Way
Sacramento, CA 95864



Quote:

Please find enclosed the documentation you requested to verify costs incurred by
Mr. And Mrs. Emil and June Relat due to abandonment of the construction work
that was to be completed under contract with MJB Bixby Construction (Bixby or
Mr. Bixby). Included is an itemized accounting of the payments made by Mr. and
Mrs. Relat to Bixby and other contractors to complete the work that Bixby should
have done under the contract and to correct faulty workmanship by Bixby. Some
of the values on the itemized accounting differ slightly from the values provided in
the 12-1-05 demand letter because of more extensive review of the documents.
During the negotiations and work that extended from May 2004 to May 2005, Mr.
Bixby continued to adjust the costs under the contract without obtaining signed
agreement from the Relats. It is difficult to determine what Mr. Bixby intended as
a final contract amount, but it appears from the proposed contract dated 6-9-04
and the revised contract dated 10-14-04 that $75,985 is probably a good
estimate of such amount.
As indicated on the itemized accounting, Mr. and Mrs. Relat incurred added costs
of approximately $33,960 (this is less than the $34,755 demanded in the letter of
12-1-05). This is a conservative estimate which Mr. and Mrs. Relat are willing to
accept to resolve the claim.
Mr. and Mrs. Relat have not included added costs of vinyl siding that Mr. Bixby
should have installed based on the 10-14-04 revised contract item number 13
(either T-11 or vinyl siding installed to owner's preference). The construction
plans filed with the State Building Permit Office signed by Mrs. Relat do not show
that T-11 would be used on the building. Mrs. Relat verbally made the request
based on the written contract. The plans at the construction site were altered
from the filed plans and the reference to T-11 was added after Mrs. Relat signed
the plans. She never requested T-11 and it appears Mr. Bixby added this
reference after the fact.
Enclosed are the MRH Construction contract, Fair Oaks Iron invoice, May 14,
2005 letter from Relats identifying paid items, Bixby contract, and Proof of Claim
Form sent to HCC Surety Group, American Contractors Indemnity Company. I
Quote:

have not included all of the correspondence with Bixby. I also have not included
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Relat demand for Reimbursement from Bixby.pdf (280.5 KB, 879 views)
File Type: pdf Bixby atty letter to Relat.pdf (600.5 KB, 1073 views)
File Type: pdf Relat contractors board complaint.pdf (60.9 KB, 882 views)
File Type: pdf Bixby - Relat settlement.pdf (223.9 KB, 1200 views)
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:36 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs ABC supply

ABC supply vs Bixby

Quote:

Defendant owes me the sum of $$4,149.77, not including court costs, because: Failure to pay on account as agreed per
contract/appl ication.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs ABC Supply.pdf (90.9 KB, 865 views)
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:38 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Ahern Rentals

Ahern Rentals vs Bixby

Quote:

Defendant owes me the sum of $4,144.54, not including cou~ costs, because: Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a written contract
in Sacramento for rental equipment. Defendant breached the Icontract by failing to pay for the invoices.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Ahern Rentals inc.pdf (95.5 KB, 847 views)
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:39 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Sperry-Marciano

Bixby vs Sperry-Marciano

Quote:

Defendant owes me the sum of $$2,494.00, not inclUding court costs, because: In the Unit we are living in the ceilings collapsed do
to faulty construction performed by Bixby construction hired by FPI Management. We were evaccuated on November25, 1997.
During the evaccuation the followings items were Damaged, misplaced or stolen 27 inch Fisher TV and Diamond ring.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Anna Maria Sperry Marciano.pdf (117.9 KB, 914 views)
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:41 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Accoustical Engineers

Bixby vs Accoustical Engineers

Quote:

Defendant owes me the sum of $3,907.00, not including court costs, because: Defendant verbally contracted for acoustical ceiling
work, work was completed, defendant has not paid.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Accoustical Engineers.pdf (408.9 KB, 1108 views)
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:42 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Brening's Rock and Supply

Bixby vs Brening's Rock and Supply


Quote:

Defendant owes me the sum of $297.39, not including court costs, because: Failure to pay for goods and services on an open book
account
.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf s Rock and supply.pdf (88.6 KB, 776 views)
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:43 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Can Am Roofing

Bixby vs Can Am Roofing

Quote:

Defendant owes me the sum of $3,509.00, not including court costs, because: MJB/Bixby Construction, Inc. & Mark J. Bixby are
being sued by Mr. & Mrs. Robert Doty on roofing that Steve Flynn & CAN-AM Roofing performed and was paid for. If there is any
latent defect as per the Doty claim, Steve Flynn
& CAN-AM roofing shall be responsible and to hold MJB/Bixby Construction & Mark
J. Bixby harmless and to satisfy any claim for same.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Can Am Roofing.pdf (96.7 KB, 798 views)
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:47 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Carter-Zelke

Bixby vs Carter-Zelke

There were more than one case involving these two companies, but they are all uploaded here



Quote:
Defendant owes me the sum of $2,388.55, not inclUding court costs, because: Refuse to pay. - Claim Date: 09/25/2002.


Quote:

Defendant owes me the sum of $1,230.03, not including court costs, because: Nonpayment. - Claim Date:
09/01/2002.
Bixby counter suit:

Quote:

a. Defendant owes me the sum of $5,000.00, not including court costs, because It is our opinion we have been wrongly torted, extorted
of money, slandered, and over billed. - Claim Date:
02/25/2004.

Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Carter Zelke.pdf (87.2 KB, 759 views)
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Carter Zelke (2).pdf (89.2 KB, 819 views)
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Zelke.pdf (85.6 KB, 835 views)
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:49 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Doty vs Bixby

Doty vs Bixby

This was the origination case which started the long litigation culminating in the settlement and permanent injunction in superior court

Quote:
Defendant owes me the sum of $3,509.00, not including court costs, because: Defendants roofed our house. The work had latent
defect that,despite best efforts, we could not locate. We spent significant sums roofing balance of house, seeking defect. Suffered
substantlallntenor damage. Defendants refused to help, told us leakage not result of Defendants' work. We identified hidden d f t
Quote:

recently under a/c. Also learned then of additional defects
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby Vs Doty (small claims).pdf (95.2 KB, 754 views)
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:51 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Jaime Flores

Bixby vs Jaime Flores.

this case was also in San Joaquin County small claims court


Quote:
Defendant owes me the sum of $$4,540.00, not including court costs, because: Failure to perform as per agreement.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Jaime Flores.pdf (85.5 KB, 1018 views)
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:52 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Karen M Johnson

Bixby vs Karen Johnson

Quote:

Defendant owes me the sUm.of $5,000.00, not including court costs, because: Bad faith retention of security deposit, breach of
contract, overcharging for utilitIes; personal property damage/theft. MUltiple code violations.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Karen M Johnson.pdf (214.5 KB, 859 views)
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:54 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Karnail Singh

Bixby vs Karnail Singh

Quote:

Defendant owes me the sum of $2,500.00, not including court costs, because: My personal belongings were damaged ,when the
apartment was changing thier roofing.all my personal belongings were rained out. first the the apt manager said they will pay for all
my damages, but now they are giving me the run-aronud.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Karnail Singh.pdf (91.6 KB, 803 views)
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:55 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Meeks The Builder's Choice

Bixby vs Meeks

Quote:

a. Defendant owes me the sum of $1,190.00, not including court costs, because: Defendant's delivery truck broke my new colored
stamped concrete driveway, sprinkler and pipeline system, while negligently driving his overweighted vehicle over these areas and
Quote:

was never authorized to do so, and still has not paid for the damages to my property that he caused
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Meeks The Builders Choice.pdf (102.8 KB, 811 views)
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:56 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs National Concrete Cutting

Bixby vs National Concrete Cutting


Quote:

Defendant owes me the sum of $1,895.00, not including court costs, because: The defendant owes us money from January 21,2003
for construction services rendered at their place of business. They have also failed to keep prior payment arrangements.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs National Concrete Cutters.pdf (117.6 KB, 1071 views)
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:57 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs New Home Building Supply

Bixby vs New Home Building Supply


Quote:

Defendant owes me the sum of
$820.53, not including court costs, because: PAST DUE BALANCE OWING FROM OCTOBER
1998; ACCT. NO. 53280.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs New Home Building supply.pdf (86.7 KB, 785 views)
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 09-26-2008, 11:59 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Process serving inc.

Bixby vs Process serving inc.

Quote:

Defendant owes me the sum of $$5,000.00, not including court costs, because: Defendant was found by the Judge in Court to have
never properly served a complaint to me and or to my company, I was the defendant in that case, and since I never received service
of the complaint that she falsified in saying that she served, which the Judge found was a lie and fraud on her part, I missed my
hearing. I am suing for Professional misconduct and fraud.

Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Process Serving inc.pdf (96.6 KB, 846 views)
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 09-26-2008, 12:00 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Sun Restaurants inc

Bixby vs Sun Restaurants inc
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Sun Restaurants inc.pdf (88.4 KB, 812 views)
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 09-26-2008, 12:01 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Valley Concrete Pumping

Bixby vs Valley Concrete Pumping

Quote:

a. Defendant owes me the sum of $5,000.00, not including court costs, because: Defendant's personnel did not properly perform his
duties in keeping concrete from hardening which consequently destroyed a entire driveway, and defendant has not filled out time
cards correctly asborbing partial liability.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Valley Concrete Pumping.pdf (95.9 KB, 917 views)
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 09-26-2008, 12:03 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Vaughans Five Star Cleaning

Bixby vs Vaughans Five Star Cleaning


Quote:

Defendant owes me the sum of $$565.00, not including court costs, because Withheld $565.00 from my paycheck alleging it was for
cleanup costs for jobs I had already cleaned
Attached Files
File Type: pdf s Five Star Cleaning.pdf (91.4 KB, 809 views)
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 09-26-2008, 12:04 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Western interiors

Bixby vs Western interiors
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Western Interiors.pdf (73.9 KB, 909 views)
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-27-2008, 11:11 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Rodrigues first Unalwful Detainer

This post will include information relating to Rodrigues vs Bixby first Unlawful Detainer
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Rodrigues 1st UD.pdf (442.5 KB, 842 views)
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Rodrigues 1st UD ansr.pdf (296.3 KB, 897 views)
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-27-2008, 11:13 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default

This post will be used for more documents relating to Bixby vs Rodrigues first Unlawful Detainer.

the attached sound files are taken from recordings of the trial. the first sound file is a record of Mark Bixby giving testimony that a date on a contract he signed which called for him to build a bathroom in the Rodrigues leased suite was a typographical error.

The second Sound file is a recording of Rodrigues's testimony in regards to Bixby's claimed typo

the third sound file is the recording of Bixby Attorney Charles Tweedy cross exam of Rodrigues about the alleged typo.
Attached Files
File Type: mp3 Bixby_claims_typo_error_in_contract_completion_date.mp3 (2.16 MB, 738 views)
File Type: mp3 Rodrigues_Typo_rebuttal.mp3 (1.24 MB, 792 views)
File Type: mp3 tweed_-_Rodrigues_typo_testimony.mp3 (1.94 MB, 806 views)

Last edited by pddadmin : 06-03-2009 at 08:31 AM. Reason: deleting discussion related material
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-27-2008, 11:14 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default

The attached files in this post are sound recordings from the Bixby vs Rodrigues first Unlawful Detainer

The first one is a recording of the judge stating mr Bixby's aggressive demeanor

The second is a recording of Bixby being examined by Defendant Rodrigues attorney about a document Bixby claimed he did not send to defendant.
See:
Dictated but not read by Mark Bixby
and
Dictated but not sent by Mark Bixby
Attached Files
File Type: mp3 Judge_cites_Bixby_aggression.mp3 (959.6 KB, 853 views)
File Type: mp3 Bixby_Dictated_but_not_sent.mp3 (1.31 MB, 800 views)
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-27-2008, 11:20 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Rodrigues 1st Unlawful Detainer

This space reserved for Rodrigues vs Bixby UD documents
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10-27-2008, 11:23 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Rodrigues 2nd Unlawful Detainer

This is the second unlawful detainer filed by Bixby against Rodrigues for late payment of the lease.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Rodrigues 2nd UD.pdf (274.9 KB, 823 views)
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Rodrigues 2nd UD ansr.pdf (193.9 KB, 806 views)
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Rodrigues 2nd UD decision.pdf (68.3 KB, 1123 views)
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-27-2008, 11:30 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default bixby vs rodrigues 3rd Unlawful Detainer

This is the third Unlawful Detainer filed by bixby against Rodrigues. Bixby attorney requested one months payment be held in his trust account pending decision on another Unlawful Detainer case filed by Bixby, and then charged that as long as the amount lodged was in his trust account, it could not be used towards the lease payment until the court distributed by order, and so demanded another payment to bring the lease current.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs rodrigues 3rd UD.pdf (240.2 KB, 795 views)
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Rodrigues 3rd UD ansr.pdf (531.6 KB, 852 views)

Last edited by pddadmin : 06-03-2009 at 08:32 AM. Reason: deleting discussion related material
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 11-17-2008, 12:36 PM
pddadmin pddadmin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 160
Default Bixby vs ABC Insulation

Bixby vs ABC Insulation

Quote:


a. I request that my small claims hearing
(date): 11/06/07 @ 8:30 a.m. a be postponed for the following reason (be specific):
Prior obligations on that date; also out of town between 11/7 thru 11/24. Also need time to contact witnesses
(one out of state, due to missionary service) with pertinent information, and to subpoena all original
documents by plaintiff for complaints to Contractors Board (twice), and all other agencies whom plaintiff
has pursued. Also asking for all email addresses and correspondence pertaining to defendant.

Quote:

b.
Quote:

0 This request is being made less than 10 days before hearing for the following reason (be specific):
3. a. A copy of this request was
[l] mailed 0 personally delivered to each of the other parties in this case



2. a. I request that my small claims hearing


(date): December 12, 2007 D be postponed for the following reason (be specific):
Mark Bixby of MID/Bixby Construction, Inc, defendant, was out of town between 11/7 and 11/24 (see
attached note), and was not available to complete subpoena forms and perform service before the deadline of
11/22 (Thanksgiving Day).

3. a. A copy of this request was
CZl mailed 0 personally delivered to each of the other parties in this



Quote:

2. a. I request that my small claims hearing
Quote:

(date): January 24, 2008 a be postponed for the following reason (be specific);
Mr.

& Mrs. Crother, owners, will be out of town the last few weeks of January, 2008, and possibly the first
week of February, 2008 on family business. Mr.

& Mrs. Crother have already revised their schedules twice
to accommodate Mr. Bixby's requests for postponement.



Quote:

CHRISTOPHER LONGAKER presiding.
The Defendant MJB/BIXBY CONSTRUCTION, INC. shall pay the Plaintiff LARRY O. CROTHER, INC., DBA - ABC
INSULATION & SUPPLY CO. principal in the amount of $4,689.00, plus costs in the amount of $155.00, totaling $4,844.00
on Plaintiff's claim.

Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs ABC insulation.pdf (474.0 KB, 829 views)
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-17-2008, 12:53 PM
pddadmin pddadmin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 160
Default Bixby vs Ty Wimberley DBA Cabinet Concepts

MJB Bixby vs Ty Wimbereley DBA Cabinet Concepts


Quote:

1. Plaintiff owes me the sum of $$5,000.00, not including court costs, because: Plaintiff did not complete work correctly personal and

buisness tort plaintiff is not complying with amended agrement plaintiff threaten bodily to mjb personnel. - Claim Date:
09/09/2004.
2. a.

0' I have asked plaintiff to pay this money, but it has not been paid.
b.

0 I have NOT asked plaintiff to pay this money because:
3. I

0 have 0' have not filed more than one other small claims action anywhere in California during this calendar year in which the
amount demanded is more than $2,500.00.
4. I understand that
a. I may talk to an attorney about this claim, but I cannot be represented by an attorney at the trial in the small claims court.
b. I must appear at the time and place of trial and bring all witnesses, books, receipts, and other papers or things to prove my case.
c. I have no right of appeal on my claim, but I may appeal a claim filed by the plaintiff in this case.
d. If I cannot afford to pay the fees for filing or service by a sheriff or marshal, I may ask that the fees be waived.
5. I have received and read the information sheet explaining some important rights of defendants in the small claims court.
6. No plaintiff is in the military service.

-------~--------

ORDER TO

Quote:

The Plaintiff WIMBERLEY, TY, DBA - CABINET CONCEPTS does not owe the Defendant MJB BIXBY CONSTRUCTION
INC. any money/property on Defendant's claim.
Quote:

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING -I certify that I am not a party to this action. This Notice of Entry of JUdgment

Quote:

The Defendant MJB BIXBY CONSTRUCTION INC. shall pay the Plaintiff WIMBERLEY, TY, DBA - CABINET CONCEPTS
principal in the amount of $925.86, plus costs in the amount of $22.00, totaling $947.86 on Plaintiffs claim.

Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Ty Wimbereley.pdf (531.8 KB, 867 views)
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-17-2008, 01:03 PM
pddadmin pddadmin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 160
Default Bixby vs Mike Boyd

Mark Bixby vs Mike Boyd
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Mike Boyd.pdf (336.4 KB, 789 views)
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 11-17-2008, 01:09 PM
pddadmin pddadmin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 160
Default Bixby vs Mike Drumheller

Bixby Trust vs Mike Drumheller


Quote:

Negligence: installing gas line per contract in a timely manner ( neglected to get a written proposal
Quote:

from PG&E. 2 Mo. delay


Quote:
Fairly compensates defendants for said delays, negligence, misrepresentations and fraud.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Mike Drumheller.pdf (204.3 KB, 810 views)
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Drumheller ansr.pdf (295.6 KB, 974 views)
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 01-22-2009, 11:10 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs ICAN

Bixby vs International Citizens Alert Network

Quote:
Plaintiff was to provide construction labor, materials and related
services to Defendant for the installation of commercial kiosks and
Defendant was to pay Plaintiff for such labor, materials and related
services.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs ICAN.pdf (163.5 KB, 839 views)
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 01-22-2009, 11:14 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Pat Cummings CB Richard Ellis

Bixby vs Pat Cummings & CB Richard Ellis

Quote:
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.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Pat Cummings CBRE.pdf (200.7 KB, 4012 views)
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 12-20-2009, 11:53 PM
pddadmin pddadmin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 160
Default Bixby vs Rutherford

Bixby vs Rutherford


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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;

Quote:

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
Quote:

were false and believed they were true and acted in justifiable

Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Rutherford.pdf (215.9 KB, 917 views)
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Rutherford cross.pdf (896.8 KB, 869 views)
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 01-26-2010, 05:36 AM
pddadmin pddadmin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 160
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 05-10-2010, 08:03 AM
pddadmin pddadmin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 160
Default MJB Bixby Construction Information Wanted

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
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 05-27-2010, 06:50 AM
pddadmin pddadmin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 160
Default Bixby vs Rutherford 2

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

Quote:

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
Quote:

disability.


Quote:

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
Quote:

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


Quote:

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
Quote:

18 breaches the construction Contract


Quote:

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

27 electrical related work. BIXBY has overbilled the electrical by


Quote:

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,
Quote:

22 but not limited to painting, tile work, molding and drywall.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Bixby vs Rutherford 2.pdf (457.3 KB, 843 views)
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 01-26-2013, 08:32 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Attorney General Of California vs MJB Bixby Construction

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
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 06-12-2014, 08:52 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Update To Attorney General vs Mark Bixby, MJB Bixby

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.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 01-29-2015, 11:11 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default MJB Bixby vs Registrar of Contractors

Mark Bixby suing to overturn the revocation of his state contractors' license.

Sacramento Superior Court judge S Lee sustains the state's demurer, and upholds the license's 5 year revocation.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 04-07-2015, 08:49 AM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Mark Bixby vs WestAmerica Bank

A lawsuit that seeks to place Mark Bixby's warehouse property in receivership

Quote:
In April, 2014, Mr. Bixby and his wife of many years separated.i (Bixby Dee\. '14.) Ms.
Bixby ran the office of his former construction business and she took care of the warehouse.
(Ibid.) Because he has a learning disability, Mr. Bixby relied on his ex-wife completely to manage their substantial business affairs. (Ibid.) Mr. Bixby ultimately hired Nika Herbert to act as his office manager in the fall of 2014. (Bixby Deel. '1 5.) He also let his significant other at the time, Shannon Mason, lake care of his financial affairs. (/hid.) Mr. Bixby met Ms. Herbert
through Ms. Mason. (Bixby Decl. ~ 5.) It was Ms. Herbert who conducted most e-rnail communications with WestAmerica, ostensibly on Mr. Bixby's behalf, resulting in the bank's understandable frustration over the fire restoration work. (Bixby Decl. 115.) Ms. Herbert also failed to alert Mr. Bixby that the warehouse was behind on its payments. Ms. Mason was
specifically charged with the responsibility for depositing the rent checks and making the warehouse payments. (Bixby Decl. ~ 5.) It was only after Mr. Bixby's relationship with Ms. Mason collapsed, that Mr. Bixby learned that the warehouse was in foreclosure, the properly taxes had not been paid, and that the Property was not insured.

Quote:
This litigation is the result of a breakdown in communication and the failure of
Mr. Bixby's employees and agents to properly administer his financial affairs as they had been entrusted to do.
Quote:
In April, 2014, I separated from my wife of twenty years, Heidi Bixby, Prior to our separation, Ms. Bixby handled all our business affairs in connection with both my construction business, multiple business entities and the warehouse. 1 have never been sophisticated in such matters and suffer from a learning disability. I therefore relied completely On my ex-wife until our separation.
Quote:
I hired Veronica Dean to take my ex-wife's duties in Mayor June of 2014. After I discovered that Ms. Dean was incompetent and probably stealing money from me, I hired Nika Herbert to act as my office manager in the Fall of 2014. I turned over control of my financial affairs, including the warehouse, to my significant other at the time, Shannon Mason, who was also my attorney for all purposes. I met Nika Herbert through Ms. Mason. it has since become
apparent that both Ms. Shannon and Ms. Herbert failed to alert me that I was behind on my payments and that Westarnerica was repeatedly requesting documentation for any contractor who might begin the fire damage repair. Among other duties, Ms. Mason and Ms. Herbert were tasked with collecting and depositing rental income from the Property and paying the loan on the
Properly. My relationship with Ms. Mason ended at the end of February, 2015, and I soon discovered that the warehouse was behind on its payments, the insurance had not been kept up to date, and that the property taxes had not been paid. The fact that the loan was in default only came to my attention when Ms. Mason informed me of the present lawsuit on or about February
25. I was devastated by the news that my ownership of the warehouse was in jeopardy and that the people I had entrusted to handle my affairs had let this happen.
Quote:
My assistant at the time, Veronica Dean, told me that Ron Clayton was fully qualified by the bank to complete the restoration. it soon became clear that Ronald Clayton was diverting payments from jobs I had completed prior to my license revocation and that he was unlawfully making charges on my vendor accounts. Ron Clayton ultimately abandoned jobs and diverted payments for jobs I had contracted out earlier prior to the loss of my license. I then proposed another contractor, yet Shannon Mason failed to properly submit documentation to Westamerica. She told me that the new contractor,Schubert had submitted all necessary documentation to qualify to perform the restoration work. At the same lime, Westamerica clearly regarded me with suspicion based on the revocation of my contractor's license and the repeated failure to communicate by my staff and Ms. Mason.
Quote:
In the past year, I have discovered that every person I trusted in my business affairs had failed to competently carry out their duties.
Quote:
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Slate of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on March 30, 2015 at
Sacramento, California.
DATED: March 30, 2015
Attached Files
File Type: pdf scan0002.pdf (797.2 KB, 746 views)
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-12-2015, 01:24 PM
Ayatollahgondola Ayatollahgondola is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 108
Default Bixby vs Westamerica Bank 1st Receiver Report

Document Highlights


Quote:
Allegedly, the Defendant had attempted to arrange prepayment of rents with some tenants prior to the July 1,2015 rent and in certain cases up to 6 months in advance.
Quote:
Due to lack of power, two tenants refuse to pay the rent. Efforts will be made as part of the repairs needed to restore power to those tenants. According to them, Bixby had promised them that he would restore power over a month ago but had failed to do so,
Quote:
The Defendant has various construction equipment, a trailer and two construction mobile offices at the site and arrangements have been made with his counsel to meet with him and have the equipment removed from the site.
Quote:
We met with the San francisco Running Association who was in the process of vacating the building. They indicated that due to unfulfilled promises from Mr. Bixby, they were relocating to another facility, Eli, a representative of the Association indicated that they had legal claims pending against Mr. Bixby due to the occupancy, but did not want to discuss in person.
Quote:
DH Construction indicated that they had only spent about 20 minutes on site with Mr. Bixby prior to the contract. They indicated that Mr.Bixby had indicated the work scope, They further indicated that they figured, and discussed with Mr. Bixby that if they did not have to spend as much on the
repair work, they could do other improvements at the project such as upgrading electrical and possible tenant improvements. It was our opinion that this contract was made more for the purpose of creating a document that could be provided to the lender rather than an arms length transaction for the actual repairs of the fire damaged project.

Quote:
Visited the site for purposes of collection of rents. A meeting was scheduled with Mr. Bixby to arrange for his removal of all his equipment and vehicles. According to his attorney, Charles Tweedy, he was to meet at the site this morning and failed to do so and repeated attempts have been made without success.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf scan0003.pdf (385.7 KB, 652 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 03:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Public Document Distributors 2011