MJB Bixby Construction Co. Lawsuits

[Ayatollahgondola]

Rosson vs Bixby

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

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs Wirsing

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.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs Mages

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.

[Ayatollahgondola]

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

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

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

have not included all of the correspondence with Bixby. I also have not included

[Ayatollahgondola]

ABC supply vs Bixby

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.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Ahern Rentals vs Bixby

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.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs Sperry-Marciano

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.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs Accoustical Engineers

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.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs Brening's Rock and Supply

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

.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs Can Am Roofing

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.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs Carter-Zelke

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

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

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

Bixby counter suit:

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.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Doty vs Bixby

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

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

recently under a/c. Also learned then of additional defects

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs Jaime Flores.

this case was also in San Joaquin County small claims court

Defendant owes me the sum of $$4,540.00, not including court costs, because: Failure to perform as per agreement.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs Karen Johnson

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.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs Karnail Singh

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.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs Meeks

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

was never authorized to do so, and still has not paid for the damages to my property that he caused

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs National Concrete Cutting

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.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs New Home Building Supply

Defendant owes me the sum of $820.53, not including court costs, because: PAST DUE BALANCE OWING FROM OCTOBER
1998; ACCT. NO. 53280.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs Process serving inc.

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.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs Sun Restaurants inc

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs Valley Concrete Pumping

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.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs Vaughans Five Star Cleaning

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

[Ayatollahgondola]

Bixby vs Western interiors

[Ayatollahgondola]

This post will include information relating to Rodrigues vs Bixby first Unlawful Detainer

[Ayatollahgondola]

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.

[Ayatollahgondola]

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

[Ayatollahgondola]

This space reserved for Rodrigues vs Bixby UD documents

[Ayatollahgondola]

This is the second unlawful detainer filed by Bixby against Rodrigues for late payment of the lease.

[Ayatollahgondola]

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.

[pddadmin]

Bixby vs ABC Insulation

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.

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

2. a. I request that my small claims hearing

(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.

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.