PHILIP A. TOOMEY, SBN 089598
ANITA V. SHAH, SBN 167722
RONALD F. GARI, SBN 181058
CARICO RICE TOOMEY, LLP
841 Apollo, Suite 450
El Segundo, CA 90245
Voice: (310) 545-0010
Fax: (310) 546-5477

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, John and Debra Bledsoe


SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER


JOHN and DEBRA BLEDSOE,

Plaintiffs,

vs.


CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE, a municipal governmental agency, JOHN HARDESTY, an individual, WILLIE TULLIUS, an individual, MIKE JORGENSEN, an individual; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive.


Defendants. )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) Case No. 30-2008-00110249
Assigned for all Purposes to:
Judge James J. DiCesare
Department C18

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES ALLEGING:

GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIM UNDER CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 822.2
GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIM UNDER CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 815.6
GOVERNMENT TORT CLAIM UNDER CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 815.6
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (First Amendment)
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (Deprivation of Vested Property Right)
42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (Against City of San Clemente - Entity Liability)

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL


)

Plaintiffs, John Bledsoe and Debra Bledsoe (collectively, “Plaintiffs” or “BLEDSOE” or “the BLEDSOES”) by and through their attorneys hereby demand jury trial and make the following allegations in support of this complaint:
ALLEGATIONS REGARDING THE PARTIES
At all times mentioned herein, the Plaintiffs John and Debra Bledsoe, were individuals, residing in the County of Orange, State of California and are and were citizens of the United States of America.
Defendant City of San Clemente (“City”) is and was a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California. As used herein, “the City” shall include all departments of the City of San Clemente, including the City of San Clemente Building Division, the City of San Clemente Code Enforcement Unit, employees, agents, officers, boards, commissions, departments, and their members, which are equally charged with complying with their duties under the City of San Municipal Code, the laws of the State of California, and the laws of the United States of America.
At all relevant times, the City of San Clemente Building Division is a department within the City, and is charged with the authority to approve plans for construction projects, issue building permits, conduct inspections and otherwise enforce the City of San Clemente Municipal Codde.
Defendant John Hardesty (“Hardesty”) is an individual residing in the County of Orange, State of California and was an employee of the City, in particular the Building Division, holding the title and position of “Building Inspector”.
Defendant Willie Tullius (“Tullius”) is an individual residing in the County of Orange, State of California and was and is an employee of the City, in particular the Building Division, holding the title and position of “Senior Building Inspector.”
Defendant Michael Jorgenson (“Jorgensen”) is an individual residing in the County of Orange, State of California and was and is an employee of the City, in particular the Building Division, holding the title and position of “Building Official.”
The City is responsible for Plaintiffs’ injures under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because its policies, customs, and/or practice caused Plaintiffs’ injuries and damages. The City is also responsible for the actions and omissions of its employees under a respondeat superior theory under California law. In addition, the City and/or the individual employees are liable as set forth in the Government Tort Claims Act as set forth in California Government Code Section 815.6 et seq.
The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, of Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 100, inclusive are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will ask for leave to amend this Complaint to set forth the true names and capacities of said fictitiously-named defendants at such time as same have been ascertained.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, upon that basis allege that at all relevant times Defendants Hardesty, Tullius and Jorgensen and DOES 1 through 10 were employees or officials of the City, a municipality of the State of California. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true identities and capacities of DOES 1 through 10 and for that reason, sue those defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, upon that basis allege that each fictitiously named defendant is in some manner and to some extent liable for the injures alleged in this Complaint. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to allege the true identities and capacities of these fictitiously named defendants when they are ascertained.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, upon that basis allege, that at all times herein mentioned, with respect to the events and transactions hereinafter described, each of the Defendants was acting as an agent for, and on behalf of, each other Defendant. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, upon that basis allege that each of the acts and/or omissions alleged hereafter to have been done, committed and/or omitted by said Defendants was done, committed and/or chargeable to all or some of the other Defendants named herein.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, upon that basis allege that each defendant is, and at all times mentioned was, the agent, employee, representative, successor and/or assignee of each other defendant. Each defendant, in doing the acts, or in omitting to act as alleged in this Complaint, was acting within the scope of his actual or apparent authority, or the alleged acts and omissions of each defendant subsequently were ratified and adopted by each other defendant as a principal.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, upon that basis allege that at all times relevant to the allegations herein, Defendants acted under the color any state law and are sued in both their individual and official capacity.
In committing the acts alleged in this complaint, Defendants acted knowingly, maliciously and with reckless and callous disregard for Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights justifying the award of punitive damages under federal and California law against each individual defendant.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud Amounting to Corruption Under Government Code Section 822.2 Against Defendants JORGENSEN, TULLIUS AND HARDESTY)
In 2004, Plaintiffs purchased a two-story single family residence in the City of San Clemente, with unfinished outdoor and yard areas, commonly known as 2500 Costero Magestuouso, San Clemente, California (“the Residence, ” “the Property, ” “the Bledsoe Residence” or “the Bledsoe Property”).
Between 2005 and 2006, Plaintiffs planned for a major work of construction to their the Residence and the exterior areas consisting of constructing a full, attached bathroom, gas lines, glass retaining wall with 12 to 17 feet deep caissons, landscaping, construction of a pool, spa and waterfall (hereinafter, “water feature”). Due to extensive nature of the project, Plaintiffs subsequently engaged the services of a landscape architectural design company to draw the plans and specifications for the project (generally, “the plans”).
In or about February 14, 2005, a City of San Clemente Building Inspector identified as Mike Moller (“Moller”) visited the Bledsoe Residence in response to a complaint concerning a an outdoor children’s play house on the Bledsoe’s property. In connection with this inspection, Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe located a City of San Clemente Building Division business card taped on or near the playhouse. Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe called the number on the business card and spoke with a man that identified himself as the inspector who came to the Bledsoe Residence to inspect the playhouse.
During the course of her conversation with the City Building Inspector Moller, Debra Bledsoe informed him that Plaintiffs planned to move the complained of playhouse to another location in the yard in connection with the planned construction project. Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe told Moller that Plaintiffs were looking for a general contractor to submit bids for the planned construction project. Debra Bledsoe informed Moller that she and her husband were extremely nervous as to which contractor they should hire because they watched their neighbors’ projects and had observed the problems their neighbors had been having with similar construction projects. Moller stated to Debra Bledsoe that she should contact “TLC” or Toussieng Landscape Construction (“hereinafter, “Toussieng”). Although Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe specifically stated that they were looking for a general contractor, Moller recommended Toussieng thereby creating the false representation that Toussieng was a general contractor, when in fact he possessed only a landscape contractor’s license. In reliance the City Building Inspector Moller’s recommendation, Plaintiffs then contacted Toussieng. Plaintiffs had no knowledge that Toussieng was not a general contractor and had no reason to believe Toussieng was not licensed as a general contractor in light of the City Building Inspector’s recommendation. Toussieng then referred them to Kelly Rasmussen, a landscape architect, to draw the plans. Rasmussen then met with Plaintiffs and eventually prepared the plans for the project.
Toussieng Landscape Construction, Incorporated (“Toussieng Landscape Construction”), at all relevant times, is and was a corporation, doing business in Orange County, duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with its principal business offices in the City of Mission Viejo, Orange County, State of California. At all times mentioned herein, Toussieng Landscape Construction, Inc., only had a California Landscape Contractor’s license with a classification of C-27.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, upon that basis allege that Dennis Toussieng is and was the principal managing agent, a responsible managing employee, or other California State Contractor’s Licensing Board agent of Toussieng Landscape Construction, exercising complete dominance and control of such business to the extent that the individuality and separateness of defendant Dennis Toussieng and Toussieng Landscape Construction does not and did not exist. In addition, there exists and existed a unity of interest and ownership between the individual defendant Dennis Toussieng and the corporate defendant Toussieng Landscape Construction, such that any individuality and separateness between them have ceased. In addition, Dennis Toussieng had a responsibility to oversee and direct Toussieng Landscape Construction to ensure that it was acting in conformity with the law and discharging its duties in a competent manner. Dennis Toussieng and Toussieng Landscape Construction are hereinafter referred to as “Toussieng.”
In or about and prior to June of 2006, Plaintiffs submitted the plans to several individuals or entities in order to receive bids to serve as a general contractor on the planned construction project. In connection with this process, and in reliance on the City Building Inspector’s recommendation and the false belief that Toussieng and/or TLC was a general contractor, Plaintiffs submitted the plans to “TLC” or Toussieng, who also represented himself as a general contractor. Plaintiffs received bids from several other general contractors. Plaintiffs also met with Toussieng more than once to discuss TLC doing the project. During the last meeting, when the final contract was signed, Plaintiffs expressed concern in dealing with the City as the City had a reputation of making it difficult for contractors to pass inspections. At that time, Toussieng indicated that he knew the inspector well and that they attended “Angel games together” and that there “would not be any problems with the City.” Although Toussieng’s bid was substantially higher than all the other bids, Plaintiffs on or around February 20, 2007, accepted Toussieng’s bid in large part due to the City’s recommendation.
Originally, the plans did not include the construction of a second story weight-bearing viewing deck. Toussieng, however, represented to Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe that he could build a 500 square foot weight bearing viewing deck that was attached to their residence and wrapped around the second story. Toussieng then, himself, drew onto the master set of plans, the 500 square foot weight-bearing viewing deck that wrapped around the second story of the residence. The agreed upon construction project now included: construction of a full attached bathroom and roof over the attached bathroom; construction of an attached 500 square foot weight-bearing deck that wrapped around the second story of the residence; construction of a 164 foot retaining wall with glass supported with approximately 21 caissons, each being 12 to 17 feet deep; construction of a pool, spa, water feature, installation of pool plumbing; and landscaping the surrounding yards (hereinafter, the “Project” or “Bledsoe Project”). The final contract between Plaintiffs and Toussieng included the above-referenced changes agreed to by Toussieng and Plaintiffs.
Prior to, and after Plaintiffs accepted Toussieng’s bid, Toussieng specifically represented that he was properly licensed to act as a general contractor on the Bledsoe Project, all the while knowing that the only California State Contractor’s license he held was one with a classification of C-27, a landscape contractor’s license. Plaintiffs believed that Toussieng was duly licensed to act as a general contractor and to complete the Bledsoe Project because of the City’s initial recommendation and because Toussieng had specifically stated he worked as a general contractor for 30 years without ever having a problem and that he completed projects of the same type and size at five other homes in the area, four of which were on the Bledsoes’ street, Costero Magestuouso. Plaintiffs had no reason to believe that Toussieng’s representations were false. Because Toussieng was recommended by the City, because Toussieng had completed other projects in the Bledsoes’ neighborhood, and because Toussieng specifically represented that he was fully licensed to do the work he proposed to do, Plaintiffs had no reason to suspect that he was not licensed to complete the contemplated work.
Prior to the execution of the final contract in February of 2007, Plaintiffs and Toussieng had entered into a number of successive contracts in connection with the Bledsoe Project. With each contract, Toussieng exacted more and more money from the Bledsoes. On one occasion, Toussieng claimed that the increase in contract price was due to the increase in the cost of materials. On other occasions, the increase in contract price resulted from Toussieng’s assertions that certain items were not included in the contract price even though those items were specifically included in the plans for the Project, on which Toussieng bid.
On or about February 20, 2007, Plaintiffs and Toussieng entered into the final contract that modified and superceded all previously executed contracts. The February 20, 2007 contract between Bledsoe and Toussieng is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and is incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length and is referred to herein as the “Toussieng Contract.”
When the contract was submitted to the Bledsoes, Toussieng informed them that a man would be by from the pool company and they were to sign his portion of the contract for construction of the pool and spa. Surprised, by Toussieng’s proclamation, upon learning of this fact, Plaintiffs expressed to Toussieng that they wanted to use a swimming pool contractor by the name of “California Pools.” When Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe requested that Toussieng use “California Pools, ” Toussieng refused this request stating that “he only worked with Seiko Pools” and “if you want to use me [Toussieng], then you’ll have to use Seiko Pools. Toussieng required Plaintiffs to execute a contract with Henry Dennis Gankema dba as Seiko Pools (referred to herein as “Seiko Pools”) as a condition of commencement of construction on the Bledsoe Project. A man identified as “Tom” came by with the Seiko Pools Contract for Plaintiffs to sign.
Between November of 2006 and February of 2007, Toussieng reportedly applied to the City Building Division for one or more building permits in connection with the Bledsoe Project (collectively, the “Building Permits” or “the Permits”).
As part of the process of applying to the City for approval of the plans and subsequently the issuance of building permits, Toussieng submitted the Plans for the Bledsoe Project. The City’s plan approval process required that a soils engineering report submitted with the plans be certified with a fresh seal from the engineering company that reviewed the plans. Soon after Toussieng submitted the Bledsoe Plans for City approval, Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe received a phone call from an employee of the City Building Division. Debra Bledsoe is informed and believes and upon that basis alleges that the City Building Division employee who made the telephone call identified himself as Jim Waters. Jim Waters reported to Debra Bledsoe that the engineering report that Toussieng submitted with the plans did not have a fresh seal of approval from the engineering company. Waters told Debra Bledsoe that that the seal looked as if it had been a “cut and paste job” from another report. After her telephone conversation with Waters, Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe asked Toussieng about the issue with the seal on the engineering report. Toussieng became unusually and unreasonably angry, exclaiming that the City Employee in question “did not know what he was talking about” and exclaimed that he [Toussieng] would “…have his job…” After this incident, Debra Bledsoe attempted to contact Waters to ensure that any problems with the engineering report had been rectified. Plaintiffs expected that Waters would call back to confirm whether his suspicions were not true and/or that any concerns that concerning the soils engineering report had been alleviated. However, after leaving several messages for Waters, Debra Bledsoe never heard from him again.
Although the plans Toussieng reportedly submitted clearly called for the construction of a full, attached bathroom, Toussieng described the full, attached bathroom as a “cabana.” Toussieng also submitted applications for building permits. The application for the building permits required that Toussieng provide a valuation of the job so that permit fees could be calculated. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that the building permit fees are calculated as a percentage that estimated valuation of the construction project contained in the application for the building permit. The final contract price for the Bledsoe Project was over three-hundred thousand ($300, 000) dollars. However, on the application for the building permits, Toussieng wrote one-hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150, 000) as the value of the project. Debra Bledsoe discovered the discrepancy and asked Toussieng about it. Toussieng replied, “I was just trying to save money.”
The City approved the plans and issued the building permits to Toussieng. Attached herein as Exhibit “B”, and incorporated herein by reference is a true and correct copy of the building permits that were issued in this case. In the case of each permit, Toussieng indicated on the actual permit that he had a C27 landscape license. Toussieng was required to certify under penalty of perjury that he was duly licensed to complete the work described in the Building Permits. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege under Section 7057 of the California Business and Professions Code, the construction work that the City authorized by the issuance of the Building Permits required a general contractor’s license with the California State Contractor’s classification “B” and a specialty contractor’s license with the classification of C-53. Toussieng possessed neither of the required California State licenses required to complete the work authorized by the City Building Permits or to obtain the permits.
Toussieng, knowing that he only had a class C-27, landscaping license, affirmed that he met the license requirement by signing following statement “I hereby affirm that I am licensed under the provisions of Chapter (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, and my license in full force and effect.” Under said affirmation, the following is listed: “Lic. No. 353363” Lic. Class. C27 Exp. Date: 7/31/08.” (Emphasis added.)
Defendant City Building Division approved the plans for the Bledsoe Project. Accordingly, Defendant City knew or should have known that a landscaping contractor’s license with the classification of C-27 was not the legally sufficient license to complete the work required by the plans, or act as a general contractor for the Bledsoe Project. Defendant City Building Division knew or should have known that any work Toussieng performed outside the scope of the said landscape license would be considered unlicensed work and not duly licensed. Despite knowing that Toussieng’s license was not legally sufficient as alleged herein, Defendant City Building Division issued the permits to Toussieng without question or without checking that Toussieng’s license authorized him to complete the work the City authorized by issuing the City Building Permits, thereby affirming the false representation that Toussieng was properly licensed to complete the Bledsoe Project.
In reliance on the false representation that Toussieng was duly licensed to complete the job specifically stated by Toussieng and affirmed and perpetuated by the City by the specific recommendation by Moller and the issuance of permits to Toussieng, the Bledsoes permitted Toussieng to start construction. Accordingly, on or after February 23, 2007, construction on the Bledsoe Project commenced.
Thereafter, Plaintiffs discovered and continues to discover substantial defects in the materials provided by, or work completed by Toussieng, which Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon that basis allege stem from Toussieng’s and Seiko’s negligent, careless, or reckless construction in breach of Toussieng’s duty to Plaintiffs. These defects include, but are not but not limited to: leaking water pipes in the yard and underneath existing property; lack of a shower pan in the added bathroom; failure to water proof the shower; faulty construction of the bathroom and roof over added bathroom; failure to place rebar properly in concrete slab; failure to install concrete with required thickness; failure to install required cold joints, failure to install drains as required by approved plans; improperly laid slab and foundation that created a slope toward the Residence; construction of the added bathroom step in a height exceeding building code requirement; failure to compact and/or re-compact soil to required depth; failure to place footings for block wall to required depth; failure to have completed items inspected; incorrect pipe material for the gas lines; faulty installation of drains and drain lines; incorrect pipe material for the drain lines; usage of perforated pipe; the Bledsoe pile is clogged with cement and dirt; failure to install 6 drains as required by plan; incorrect installation of pool tile on uneven surface; excess conductors in pipes causing sheathing on wires and fray; inadequate expansion joints in concrete sub-base; lack of insulation and/protection of heating lines in the yard; improper waterproofing of deck; improper and illegal relocation of air-conditioning units; installation of improper ventilation of blocking rafters in second story deck; inadequate space for stone tile to be placed on top of concrete base; plumbing and electrical equipment installed by unlicensed contractor; improper thickness of sub-base; failure to leave clearance from windows to pool heating equipment and cement trap around playhouse; inadequate space between roof and deck and bathroom and edge of property; usage of irregular and un-matching pre-cast pieces; and lack of waterproof barrier to house where Toussieng built the deck.
With regard to the work of workers, and/or subcontractors that Toussieng purportedly supervised on the project, Plaintiffs discovered, and continues to discover certain defects in the materials provided by, or work performed said workers and subcontractors. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, upon that basis the allege the defects in materials and substandard work that stem from the negligent, careless, or reckless construction of Seiko Pools, the swimming pool contractor that Toussieng required Plaintiffs to use as a condition of commencement of construction, and/or Seiko’s subcontractor(s) in breach of Seiko’s duty owned to Plaintiffs. These defects include, but are not limited to: improper installation of pool and spa pumping lines; faulty installation of pool piping lines; incorrectly placed pool electrical equipment; inadequate electrical power supply to run pool and spa; improper installation of gas lines; gas lines not able to hold pressure; incorrect placement of pool plumbing resulting in lack of space to install surface drains and pool-auto fill feature; incorrect installation of pool tiles on uneven surface; improper, uneven, and unleveled placement of pool and heating filtering equipment; construction of uneven, unleveled, and improperly measured tile bed; failure to install automatic-fill feature as required by Contract; failure to construct walls of pool with proper thickness in multiple areas; failure to construct pool to depth required under the Contract; and various other defects that are still under investigation.
On and after August 10, 2007, Toussieng made several intentionally false statements concerning the quality of the pre-cast materials that he used on the Bledsoe Project and his inability to return and/or replace pieces that were defective, that did not match in color or size, or otherwise irregular in terms of quality and/or fit. A dispute had also arisen regarding glass pool tile that Toussieng had installed in which a substantial number of individual pool tiles had begun to crack and shatter and lift from the base. Toussieng claimed that the tile purchased by plaintiffs for their job was of substandard quality. Subsequently, Plaintiffs consulted with a tile expert who indicated that Toussieng had used the wrong type of adhesive in installing the tile and had failed to install the glass tile according to manufacturer specifications.
On about August 10, 2007, as a result of the defects and deficiencies in Toussieng’s work and said false statements made by Toussieng, Plaintiffs were forced to suspend Toussieng’s work on the Project. Debra Bledsoe told Toussieng that “he could come back to the job when he could be honest.”
Shortly after construction was suspended on August 10, 2007, Toussieng told Plaintiff John Bledsoe in a voice mail message left on John Bledsoes cell-phone that Toussieng was going on a fishing trip for a few days and that he hoped that when he returned on or about August 24, 2007 that they could meet. Toussieng reportedly made similar comments about the upcoming fishing trip and stated that the trip was to include contractors, vendors and other people in the building trade. In that voice message to John Bledsoe, Toussieng stated: “John, I am hoping when I get back, we can get together, man to man, and talk as gentlemen.”
At this point in time, Plaintiffs did not know that Toussieng was not licensed to do their job. Another one of the Plaintiffs’ vendors, upon hearing that the job was not moving forward, advised Plaintiffs to have the building inspector from the City of San Clemente come out and look at the job and also advised that Plaintiffs call another contractor for a second opinion regarding the work performed by Toussieng and Seiko.
On or around August 20, 2007, Debra Bledsoe then called the City of San Clemente Building Division and requested to speak with the building inspector who would have been assigned to Plaintiffs’ address of 2500 Costero Magestuoso. The City employee that answered Debra Bledsoe’s call advised her that the name of the building inspector assigned to her address was John Hardesty “Hardesty.” Plaintiffs had never met Hardesty and had no idea that an inspector had been overseeing the Bledsoe Project. Bledsoe was then informed that Hardesty was on vacation and out of the office but that she could leave him a voice mail. Bledsoe did not leave a message for Hardesty but instead called the City again and asked to speak to the individual who was Hardesty’s supervisor. Bledsoe was then informed that Hardesty’s supervisor, Senior Building Inspector Willie Tullius “Tullius” was also out of the office on vacation. Debra Bledsoe left a voice mail for Tullius asking him to contact her. Debra Bledsoe thought it was odd that her contractor, her building inspector and her building inspector’s supervisor were on vacation at the exact same time.
Up until the time that Plaintiffs contacted the City Building Division on or about August 20, 2007, Plaintiffs had never heard the name John Hardesty, nor had they ever seen or met Hardesty during the time that Toussieng was working on the Bledsoe Project. Debra Bledsoe then recalled that Toussieng often wore T-shirts advertising “Rice Bowl Charters” fishing trips and looked it up on the Internet. Bledsoe then found pictures of “Toussieng on several of the fishing trips. The pictures also showed the man identified as “Tom” who brought the contract from Seiko Pools to the Bledsoes to sign. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that construction contractors, and suppliers sponsored some of the Rice Bowl Charters fishing trips. Plaintiff later learned John Hardesty, the City building inspector that was assigned to inspect the Bledsoe Project, was pictured on at least one of the same fishing trips as Toussieng.
On or around Monday, August 27, 2007, Tullius returned Debra Bledsoe’s call. Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe and Tullius spoke. Although Bledsoe had never spoken with Tullius up until this point, Tullius, knowing nothing about the problems with the job, Tullius told Debra “You have a contract with this man. You need to honor it.” Tullius showed little if any interest in any of Debra Bledsoe’s concerns about the problems with the Project. Instead, Tullius repeatedly reiterated that Plaintiffs must allow Toussieng to resume working on the job, effectively lobbying or acting as an advocate on Toussieng’s behalf. Debra Bledsoe asked Tullius to come to the Bledsoe Residence to inspect her job so she could show Tullius Toussieng’s shoddy and substandard work and ask him certain questions to determine whether Toussieng’s work was up to the standards required by the City of San Clemente Municipal Code.
A few days later, Tullius came to the Bledsoe Residence and met with both plaintiffs. Although Tullius walked around the premises, he never asked to see the master plans or job inspection cards, which at the time of his visit, Plaintiffs were unaware even existed or should have been on the job site. Plaintiffs pointed out numerous deficiencies about various aspects of the job they had discovered to be substandard since Toussieng had stopped work. Plaintiff asked Tullius if various aspects of Toussieng’s work were “up to code.” Tullius avoided giving direct answers to Plaintiffs regarding whether Toussieng’s work was substandard or was not up to code. In response to one such question about an item being up to building code, Tullius remarked “I don’t know, ask your contractor” or “you will have to ask Dennis.” Plaintiff John Bledsoe asked Tullius if he knew Toussieng and Tullius stated that he thought he had met the contractor once. Although Tullius reported that he only met Toussieng once, on this first visit, he repeatedly referred to Toussieng by his first name “Dennis.” Tullius did not make any statements, comment on, or respond in any way to Plaintiffs’ concerns that significant aspects of Toussieng’s work were substandard, even when confronted with blatantly problematic items such as several surface drains called for on the plans but not installed by the contractor. Toussieng repeatedly advised Plaintiffs that the person that they should be talking to about the problems with the Project as “Dennis.” As Tullius left the Bledsoe residence that day, Tullius reiterated that Plaintiffs were under contract with Toussieng and that they should “honor their contract” and, that if they did not, “they would be in a lot of trouble.” Tullius repeatedly admonished Plaintiffs that they needed to get their contractor back on the job so the job could get finished.
At or near the end of the above stated first visit to the Bledsoe Residence, Debra Bledsoe showed Tullius pictures of “Rice Bowl Charters” fishing trips. Debra Bledsoe had printed out off the Rice Bowl Charters Website, which included Toussieng and others on fishing trips. Debra Bledsoe pointed out that Toussieng was on vacation when he should have on the job site. Debra Bledsoe pointed out Dennis Toussieng in the photos and asked Tullius if he knew any of the other persons shown in the photographs. Upon seeing the photographs, Tullius, exclaimed loudly “Where did you get these?” Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Hardesty, Tullius’s subordinate, was depicted in the photographs shown to Tullius. Tullius, however, denied that he recognized anybody in the photographs. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Tullius’s recognized Hardesty in these photographs, which explained his unreasonable reaction.
Plaintiffs had never seen, or observed Hardesty at the Bledsoe Project. After Tullius’s first visit to the Bledsoe Property, Hardesty, despite being the assigned inspector for their address, never came to the Bledsoe Project to meet the Bledsoes or subsequently conduct an inspection of Toussieng’s work. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that the City intentionally made him “unavailable” now that Tullius and others in the City knew that Plaintiffs discovered photographs of Toussieng and Hardesty on at least one “Rice Bowl” fishing trip together.
Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe’s brother-in-law, Steve Murphy, who is a general contractor and owns Murphy Industrial Painting, upon learning of the unfruitful visit by Tullius, advised Plaintiffs that they should have the City Building Inspector return to the property and write up a correction order for the contractor to address. Some time during the week of September 4, 2007, Debra Bledsoe called City Building Inspector Tullius’s office and asked Tullius to come to the Bledsoe Property and write up a correction order for Toussieng. Tullius told Debra Bledsoe: “You don’t want to start something like that Debra.” Tullius then said “let me talk to Dennis and I will get back to you on that.” Debra Bledsoe called Tullius at least four times asking for the correction orders so that Toussieng might be able to return to the job to correct the deficiencies. At this point, the Bledsoes did not know that Toussieng was unlicensed to complete the job.
On or around September 10, 2007, Plaintiffs hired another general contractor to come to their job and evaluate the work that had been done. Plaintiffs hired this and other consultant(s) to determine the nature and extent of the defects and deficiencies in the work performed by Toussieng and his subcontractors. In connection therewith, one or more of the experts requested a review of the City Building Division Job Inspection Cards, which Plaintiffs were informed were required to be posted at the Bledsoe Project construction site. Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe had never seen the Job Inspection Cards posted at the site. This general contractor informed plaintiffs that Dennis Toussieng was not licensed to do most of the work and that that a C-27 license did not authorize the construction of a watertight deck, retaining wall, attached bathroom and other items. Plaintiffs were informed much of the work was illegal since an unlicensed contractor completed it. This general contractor questioned Plaintiffs as to how Toussieng was able to obtain or “pull permits” for the work and stated, that “there would be now way the building department would issue permits to him [Toussieng]” because “he could not even sub [contract] the work out.” On this date, Plaintiffs learned that Toussieng was unlicensed to act as a general contractor on the Bledsoe Project and that it was illegal for Toussieng to complete many aspects of the work that he had performed and that were required by the Plans.
Between September 10, 2007, and September 13, 2007, Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe made several calls to Senior Building Inspector Willie Tullius, thinking that the City of San Clemente would be interested to know that an unlicensed contractor was issued a building permit to do her job.
On or around September 13, 2007, Senior Building Inspector Willie Tullius finally returned the series of calls Debra Bledsoe had made to him. In the course of their conversation, Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe informed Tullius about concerns that she had that the Job Inspection Cards had been falsified, Toussieng’s construction on the Bledsoe Project had never been inspected and that the City had issued permits to Toussieng when he was unlicensed to complete the work covered by the Plans and the Building Permits. Debra Bledsoe having the new information that Toussieng was not licensed to build the project raised that issue to Tullius as follows: Debra Bledsoe stated: “Willie, you are not going to believe this, guess what I found out? My expert told me, Dennis (Toussieng) was not even licensed to build this job.” When Debra Bledsoe was met with silence, she repeated: “Willie, my expert told me that Dennis had to have a B license to build what he (Dennis) built. He is only a landscaper!” Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe then questioned Tullius concerning the propriety of Toussieng returning to the Project to fix deficiencies and defects when he was unlicensed to act as a general contractor and make certain repairs. Tullius responded: “That’s between you and Dennis.” Tullius expressed no concern that there was illegal construction work going on in the City of San Clemente.
Debra Bledsoe then asked Tullius why the City would allow Toussieng to obtain permits when he was not licensed to complete the work authorized by the permits. Tullius had no response, other than to say that “He [Toussieng] was licensed.” When further questioned as to why Toussieng was allowed to obtain permits if he was not licensed to complete the work, Tullius responded: “Well Debra, I guess everybody makes mistakes.” In disbelief, Debra Bledsoe stated, “You guys should never have allowed him to pull permits and you guys recommended him to me. I need to talk to your boss.” Tullius responded with: “Debra, don’t make me sorry I made this call. You better let your contractor finish the job or you will be in a ton of legal trouble.” When Debra Bledsoe reiterated that Toussieng was not licensed to complete the work, Tullius said: “Debra, that doesn’t matter. He has a C-27. Don’t you want your children to get to swim in the pool someday?” Debra then asked Tullius if he was going to check out the other homes on the street that Toussieng did work on and see if they are safe from hazards. Tullius then replied “No I’m not and I’m telling you Debra, you better let Dennis come back and finish your job!”
When Debra Bledsoe again questioned what Tullius was going to do about the situation, Tullius responded: “Nothing, Debra we have perfect immunity.” Tullius repeatedly made statements to Debra Bledsoe to “go back to her contractor and let him finish the job” or “you better let your contractor finish the job or you will be in a ton of legal trouble… you have a contract, you have to honor it, or it will cost you a lot of money.” Finally, when Debra Bledsoe reiterated her request that she needed to speak with Tullius’s boss, Tullius responded with what became a repeated threat: “Debra, don’t make me sorry I made this call.”
Although Debra Bledsoe sought to have the correction orders written up, she did not trust Tullius. Debra Bledsoe said: “Willie, I don’t trust you anymore. I don’t want you to come to my property alone. I am insisting that you bring someone with you when come to do the correction list. I am very concerned about what you are trying to force me to do.” Tullius responded: “Fine. If that’s what you want to start but I am warning you Debra, it will be years before your kids have a back yard. If you want to start this, I will.” Tullius then ended the conversation by saying, “I’ll call you with the date I am coming.” Tullius then hung up.
Later that same day, Plaintiffs also took their complaints to higher-level employees within the City Building Division. In particular, Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe contacted Defendant Jorgensen, who was the City Building Official. In the course of her conversation with Jorgensen, Debra Bledsoe reiterated her concerns regarding Hardesty and Tullius and concerns regarding her earlier unsettling earlier conversation with Tullius concerning Toussieng not being licensed to complete the job. Debra Bledsoe also informed Jorgensen of the fact that she had never observed any inspection of Toussieng’s construction by Hardesty and that during Tullius’s recent visit to the Bledsoe Property, Tullius lacked knowledge as to whether Toussieng’s construction violated the building code. In response, Defendant Jorgensen said: “the contractor is blessed by the state.” When Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe reiterated these concerns and her new concerns that there may be corruption in the City Building Division to Jorgensen, he threatened Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe by stating, “…if you don’t stop causing problems for the City you will never pass final.” Plaintiff, Debra Bledsoe upon hearing this simply said “O.K.” and hung up. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that “passing final” means passing final inspection.
Several days later, Tullius called Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe back and informed her that he was going to visit the Bledsoe Project on or about September 18, 2007. When Debra Bledsoe informed Tullius that the scheduled date was convenient because “she would be at home, ” Tullius told Debra Bledsoe that “she can’t be there.” When Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe questioned Tullius as to why she could not be there, Tullius kept saying, “ you can’t be there” or words to that effect. Tullius further said to Debra Bledsoe that it “would be better if she went somewhere else during the inspection.” When Debra Bledsoe refused, Tullius told her that if she was going to be home, she was “not to come outside of her home.” When Debra Bledsoe asked Tullius why she could not come out of her home for the inspection, Tullius responded: “That’s correct, you are not allowed to be there!”
On or about September 18, 2007, approximately 10 minutes prior to the scheduled inspection time, Tullius called Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe from his cellular phone to inform her that he was almost at the Bledsoe Residence and stated: “I want to remind you that you are not allowed to come outside…we’ll talk to you when we’re are done.” Tullius eventually arrived. A second previously unidentified man, now identified as Robert Ferguson “Ferguson” arrived in a separate car. Tullius and Ferguson walked throughout the construction site. After the purported inspection took place, Tullius walked Ferguson to his car. After Ferguson left the Bledsoe Residence in the car, Tullius contacted Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe at the Residence.
When Bledsoe met Tullius at the front door to the Residence, he stated: “Debra, you don’t want to start this.” In the course of Bledsoe’s conversation with Tullius, he repeatedly attempted to dissuade Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe from making any further complaints concerning Toussieng’s defective and deficient work or the fact that Toussieng was unlicensed to complete the work. After Debra Bledsoe invited Tullius into the family’s front room, Tullius stated again: “Debra, you really do not want me to write this up.” When Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe responded affirmatively, Tullius responded by stating that there was a “legal contract” and that Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe was going to be in a “whole lot of legal trouble” if she did not let Toussieng return to make repairs.
When Plaintiff insisted the Tullius write up the code violations, Tullius became visibly upset and tried to explain how much money she [Debra] was going to cost her family. Tullius reluctantly wrote items down, but always came back to reiterating that “Toussieng must be let back on the job.” When Tullius finished writing items down, Bledsoe requested the papers. Tullius responded, “These are for Dennis.” After Bledsoe insisted, Tullius reluctantly gave her three pages of papers, which purportedly listed all the corrections that Toussieng was to make. Attached herein as Exhibit “D” is a true and correct copy of the “Notice of Correction” that Tullius prepared in connection with his visit to the Bledsoe Project on September 18, 2007. Although the original plans submitted and approved by the City, clearly covered irrigation systems, gas outlets and the spiral staircase, the inspection required Plaintiffs to obtain additional permits for the improvements.
After Tullius handed Debra Bledsoe copies of the Notice of Correction, Debra Bledsoe then had them copied. During the time that the Notice of Correction was being copied, Bledsoe asked Tullius: “what happens from here?” Tullius told Debra Bledsoe that he would have Dennis come by to pick up the Notice of Correction paperwork. Debra Bledsoe then asked, “he [Toussieng] has 10 days, right, to correct it?” Tullius shrugged his shoulder and stated: “I guess.” Debra Bledsoe then asked: what do you mean, by “I guess?... aren’t there rules and punishments if he doesn’t do these things?” Tullius responded: NO. Debra Bledsoe then asked, “….it says on the bottom of this list, he has 10 days. If he doesn’t, you (City) will not let him work on someone else’s project until he does, Correct?” Tullius replied: “No, we can’t stop him from working, it’s on a case by case basis.” Debra Bledsoe then said, “So, nothing happens to him if chooses not to obey this notice?” Tullius then said: “That’s right.”
After the copies of the Notice of Correction had been made and the originals returned to Tullius, Tullius nodded his head toward the back yard and said, “Do you want to see your kids swim in that pool?” Debra Bledsoe said that she did, but only if it was safe. Debra Bledsoe asked if Tullius was going to check other homes on the street where Toussieng did work, to which, Tullius replied: “No, I’m not.” Tullius then left the Bledsoe Residence, again stating: I’m telling you Debra, you better let Dennis come back and finish your job!’
On or about September 19, 2007, Toussieng produced the inspection cards and master plans and came back to the house. John Bledsoe walked around from the backyard during which time, Toussieng was speaking on the telephone, ending the call by stating, “Willie, I have to go.” Debra and John then confronted Dennis who agreed that he did not keep the inspection cards and master building plan on the site told the Bledsoe’s that he had special permission not to keep the inspection cards and master plans on the site. Attached herein as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by this reference are the Job Inspection Cards that were produced to Plaintiffs, which purport to show that John Hardesty signed off on various aspects of the project.
On the dates listed on Job Inspection Cards, Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe, who works at home, had never once observed a City Building Inspector at the Bledsoe Property, nor had she observed a City Building Division car in front of the Bledsoe Residence. In addition, an employee of Plaintiff John Bledsoe, who works at the Bledsoe Residence in an office that faced the job site, never observed a City Building Inspector at the Bledsoe Project construction site. To this date, Plaintiffs have never have met or seen John Hardesty in person, but now know him after he was identified from the Rice Bowl Charters pictures. Plaintiffs are certain that they never observed Hardesty the numerous inspections as reflected in Exhibit C.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and, upon that basis alleged that Defendant Hardesty falsely completed the Job Inspection Cards attached herein as Exhibit C and that Hardesty never actually inspected Toussieng’s work on the Project. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Hardesty never inspected the full-attached bathroom.
Defendant Jorgensen has adopted Hardesty false inspection information by publishing that information to Bledsoe, stating that inspections had actually taken place. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Jorgensen’s adoption of the false reports was part and parcel of the conspiracy to cover for John Hardesty and the improper and wrongful conduct of the City of San Clemente Building Division.
On or about October 24, 2007, Plaintiffs had a meeting with several City officials, including George Scarborough, the City Manager for the City of San Clemente, Defendant Jorgensen, the acting Mayor, Jim Dahl, Sam Penrod, human resources official, and Defendant Tullius. Hardesty, the building inspector who the City assigned to the project was not at the meeting, although Hardesty was the one individual who could provide the answers to Plaintiffs’ several and varied concerns. In this meeting, several topics concerning the Bledsoe Project were discussed, including the reasons why the City issued building permits to an unlicensed contractor. When Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe brought up Tullius’s instruction to “stay inside the house” while his purported inspection with Ferguson took place on September 18, 2007, Tullius became visibly angry and upset, stood up, picked up his chair and threw it against the table, saying, “Debra, don’t throw me under the bus!”
At that point, Tullius was excused from the meeting and was told that he should not say any more as the matter was being opened as an employee investigation. The City officials and/or representatives then denied that there was any improper relationship between Toussieng and Hardesty, and specifically stated that the reason why the two had attended baseball games together was to save on transportation costs and parking fees. When Debra Bledsoe questioned the propriety of having a relationship existing between a contractor and the City Building Inspector assigned to inspect that contractor’s work on a current projects, one or more City official replied: “We cannot tell our employees who they could and could not be friends with.”
Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe printed out photographs of Toussieng on various fishing trips with other persons. The photographs were organized by the dates of the trips and were posted on the internet site of Rice Bowl Charters in a photo gallery. Plaintiffs recently showed some of the photographs to a third party who identified one of the other persons on the fishing boat as John Hardesty, the City building inspector who had been assigned to their job. Plaintiffs did not recognize Hardesty as they had never seen him on their property nor had they ever met him. Plaintiffs believe in light of the fact that Hardesty and Toussieng appear in the photograph on a fishing trip that a special and improper relationship existed between Hardesty and Toussieng and that because of that relationship Hardesty did not properly inspect their property and in fact never inspected Tousseing’s work on their property. This is evidenced by the fact that a bathroom was built and attached to the Plaintiff’s house that, which was not described in the building permit. Had Hardesty inspected Toussieng’s work, the unpermitted bathroom and numerous other obvious defects such as missing surface drains would have been noted and dealt with.
Plaintiffs, prior to engaging the services of Toussieng, gave a $1, 000.00 deposit to Mitchell Parks a landscape contractor who was the contractor on a construction project for a neighbor, Ralph Foster. Parks later returned Plaintiffs’ deposit to them indicating that he could not do Plaintiff’s job due to circumstances beyond his control. After Plaintiffs’ trouble with the City started, Plaintiffs have learned that Hardesty was the building inspector over the project at the Foster’s home. Plaintiff later learned that Hardesty asked contractor Mitchell Parks for money by telling Parks that the Foster’s job would go much easier if Parks “would take care of him.” When Parks refused, Parks was reportedly forced to unnecessarily redo certain items of work. Plaintiffs later learned that after Parks completed the Foster job, he stated he would “never work in the City of San Clemente again.” Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that the reason Mitchell refused to take Plaintiffs’ job was because of the corruption described herein.
Ralph Foster, who hired Parks, commented to Hardesty about how comparatively quickly the Plaintiff’s project was being completed Hardesty reportedly said of Toussieng and TLC in effect “He (Toussieng) is the best. We never have any problems with him.” Although Hardesty was the assigned inspector on both the Foster Project and the Bledsoe Project, Foster saw Hardesty often where Plaintiffs never saw Hardesty. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that the reason Plaintiffs never saw Hardesty was because Toussieng “took care of” Hardesty in some way, either by bribes and/or other gratuities, such as fishing trips or baseball ticket, whereas Parks did not “take care of” Hardesty.
Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that several other contractors have been forced to pay bribes, gratuities or give other favors to Hardesty and other City of San Clemente Building Division employees. Plaintiffs are in the process of investigating the identities of these other contractors and will amend this complaint to add such names of those persons. Plaintiff believes that there is a common scheme among at least some of the Building Inspectors and other City officials to solicit and accept bribes and/or favors from contractors and others over whom they have a duty of inspection. Plaintiffs believe that Hardesty chose not to be “a problem” to Toussieng due to the fact that Hardesty received favors and other inducements in exchange for his “looking the other way” and failing to do carry out his duty with diligence and candor.
On or more Defendants made intentionally false statements by recommending Toussieng as a general contractor, when it knew that Toussieng was not licensed to complete the job; adopting and perpetuating the false representation by issuing building permits, authorizing Toussieng to act as a general contractor on the Bledsoes’ job when he in fact had no such license. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on such false representations by City employees and the City Building Division and hired Toussieng and allowed such construction to commence.
One or more Defendants have made intentionally false statements by representing that inspections had taken place when in fact they had by falsifying inspections cards; by adopting, approving and/or publishing such false inspection information. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that one or more Defendants knew that said representations was false because of the relationship that was known to exist between Toussieng and Hardesty. Plaintiffs had no way of knowing that such inspection reports were false and relied on written and verbal assurances that Toussieng’s work had passed inspection by paying for certain “completed” portions of the work and allowing Toussieng to continue to work on the Bledsoe Project and paying him for work that was purportedly approved by one or more Defendants, Jorgensen, Hardesty and Tullius.
One or more Defendants have made intentionally false statements by repeatedly stating that there was a legal contract with Toussieng that Plaintiffs needed to abide by and by persisting in representing that Plaintiffs had a legal obligation to Toussieng, when in fact they did not because Toussieng was unlicensed. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that one or more Defendants making that statement knew such statement was false and was said with the intent to induce Plaintiffs into using an unlicensed contractor to conceal and cover up the City’s wrongdoing and corruption.
Jorgensen and Tullius, acting in concert with one another by threatening Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe to keep quiet and use her unlicensed contractor and not make trouble for the City, or risk passing final inspection shows that the City was ready and willing to sign off on the efforts of an unlicensed contractor (Toussieng), thereby certifying unlicensed and therefore illegal work in the form of a Certificate of Completion issued by the City. The Certificate of Completion, issued by the City on unlicensed and illegal work would then defraud Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs homeowner’s insurance carrier, any future homeowner’s insurance carrier and/or any future purchaser of the Plaintiff’s property. Plaintiffs would have a duty to any insurance company or future purchaser of their property to disclose that the work done on their property was done by a licensed contactor and thus was done illegally and under an illegally obtained and invalid permit. Any insurance carrier would not certify such illegal work or pay out for injuries to persons who were injured in whole or in part by such unlicensed work. Jorgensen, in making his ill-advised and threatening statements, Tullius, in engaging in a pattern of threats toward Plaintiff Debra Bledsoe, in effect was an attempt to coerce Plaintiffs to participate in his scheme and keep quiet about the unlicensed work. Such a threat was pregnant with the expectation that the Bledsoes would have to continue to perpetrate the fraud of the unlicensed work to present and future home insurers and homebuyers. Such an act by a high ranking government building official and supervisory personnel in the City Building Division is outrageous and calculated to damage Plaintiffs and other as stated above by placing Plaintiffs in a position of participating in the City’s scheme and fraud.
As a direct and proximate result of the acts of defendants, the Bledsoes have suffered and will suffer substantial injury, including physical injury to property, loss of use and enjoyment; diminution of in property value; economic loss, including but not limited to loss of income; the costs to hire attorneys, experts, contractors, and repair costs; payments already made to defendants for substandard work; loss of ability to refinance mortgage at a lower interest rate; personal injury, pain and suffering, and emotional distress, resulting in general, special, and consequential damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no event less than the minimum jurisdictional amount of this Court.
Defendants acted with fraud, malice and oppression within the meaning of California Civil Code § 3294 and their conduct justifies the award of exemplary and punitive damages. Specifically, Tullius, acting under his authority as Senior Building Inspector for the City began his interaction with Plaintiffs, advocating for Toussieng, and instructing Plaintiffs to let the contractor back on the job before even meeting Plaintiffs or observing the substandard conditions that Toussieng had created. Tullius pattern of and repeated threats to Plaintiff Debra were oppressive and outrageous. Jorgensen, ratified Tullius threats by adding his own even more grave threat. The City chose to be aligned with criminal behavior – unlicensed contracting, false inspection cards, concealment, bribery and fraud, as opposed to protecting the citizens and constituents who justifiably believed they could rely on them resulting in damage that cannot be undone.
Plaintiffs have presented, filed and served timely claims under California Government Code § 910 et seq., with the City of San Clemente based on facts and circumstances herein alleged and said claims have been explicitly rejected by the City, or have been rejected by operation of law, or are otherwise exempt from the claim filing requirement. This lawsuit is being filed within the time required by law following said rejections of Plaintiffs’ governmental claims.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Government Code Tort Claim Under California Government Code § 815.6 – Breach of Mandatory Duty against All Defendants Failure to Ensure that Contractors are State-Licensed)
Plaintiffs incorporated paragraphs 1 through 76 by reference as though fully set forth at length.
Defendant City had a mandatory duty imposed statute to ensure that it issues building permits to duly licensed contractors, whose license authorizes the work covered by the permits. Otherwise, the permit is invalid and any work completed by the contractor would be considered improvements made without permits and “unlicensed work.” The City’s duty arises from Business and Professions Code section 7031.5 and the City’s own laws and enactments.
The State of California requires permits to be issued to licensed contractors under California Business and Profes