Request for continuing the CHRO's issued
"disapproval." The May 13 Letter requests that the City either rescind Response 4 or institute the procedures under subdivision (h)(6)(E), but does not unequivocally invoke the subdivision (h)(6)(E) procedures as of the date of the letter. The text suggests that City should take one action or the other, but does not reasonably suggest that the City must then immediately follow the procedures of subdivision (h)(6)(E) with timing starting from May 13. Petitioner's actions subsequent to the May 13 Letter provide further ambiguity in construing the May 13 Letter.
The original petition alleges that the five-day period for posting required by subdivision (h)(6)(E)(ii) was triggered by the May 13 Letter. (Petition, P.P. 64-68.) But, on June 6, 2025, shortly after the petition was filed, Petitioner submitted Development Application 5 that substantively addressed the issues raised in Response 4. For example, the comment regarding Proposed Floor Area in Response 4 is: "Your April 12, 2025, response letter states that the Residential Net Floor Area by Unit/ Floor Level tables are updated and correct, and points to Sheet G001.b; however, the data included in the Residential Net Floor Area by Unit/Floor Level (Sheet G0001.b) does not include square footage information (it appears the associated columns have been cut off).
Please provide the complete table, including square footage." (AR 688.) The May 13 Letter with respect to this comment is: "This is referenced in the Project Plan Submittal Guide. Therefore, we provided it. Your letter claims that the proposed floor area is not provided. The net and gross area were provided. This claim has no basis in fact." (AR 950.) Petitioner's comment in replying to the Response 4 comment is: "The table has been expanded to show the cut-off values - tables are updated and correct.
See revised sheet G001. [P.] Please see the provided summary table provided for easy reference to project data." (AR 5.) Development Application 5 demonstrates that Petitioner was not standing unequivocally upon the completeness of Development Application 4 and, at least in part, the City's request for further information was based on information that apparently Petitioner intended to include in Development Application 4 but actually did not. This gives rise to a reasonable inference that the May 13 Letter comments such as "this claim has no basis in fact" is exaggerated.
With this additional information--required or not--the City found Development Application 5 complete. Taken together and weighing the competing inferences, the Court finds that the May 13 Letter did not satisfy the requirement of subdivision (h)(6)(E)(1) to "detail the challenged conduct and why it constitutes disapproval." Based upon this finding, the Court determines that the fifth cause of action application for a writ of mandate compelling compliance with Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (h)(6)(E) is denied as to the alleged noncompliance immediately following the May 13 Letter.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
To the extent that Petitioner seeks by this cause of action writ relief as to other or later conduct, the application for writ is denied as not ripe for adjudication. (6) Conclusion As discussed above, Petitioner's first cause of action application for issuance of writ of mandate is denied as moot. Petitioner has conceded that the second cause of action application for issuance of writ of mandate is moot. As also discussed above, Petitioner's fifth cause of action application for issuance of writ of mandate is denied.
Petitioner's remaining causes of action are for declaratory relief. Petitioner concedes that its fourth cause of action for declaratory relief is moot. Petitioner's third cause of action for declaratory relief is not within the scope of this proceeding to determine the applications for issuance of writs of mandate. If the parties don't stipulate to resolving these causes of action then the City is directed to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings. If the motion is successful, then the matter is teed up for judgment; if the motion is not, then the matter is teed up for a Court trial.
Tentative Ruling: Quizon v. Izkina, LLC, et al Tentative Ruling: Quizon v. Izkina, LLC, et al Case Number
25CV04101 Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 04/22/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff Rex Quizon, doing business as Key Zone Construction: Min N. Thai, Splinter & Thai, PC For Defendants Izkina, LLC, and Suretec Insurance Company: Brant H. Dveirin, Caroline E. Chan, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP RULING For all reasons stated herein, the motion of Plaintiff Rex Quizon, doing business as Key Zone Construction, for leave to file a second amended complaint is granted. Plaintiff shall file the second amended complaint on or before April 24, 2026. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading to the second amended complaint on or before May 18, 2026. The current MSC and trial dates are confirmed.
Background
On July 1, 2025, Plaintiff Rex Quizon, doing business as Key Zone Construction (Key Zone), filed the complaint in this action against Defendants Izkina, LLC (Izkina) and Meadows Bank (Meadows). This action pertains to a contract (Contract) for property improvement work performed by Key Zone at 30 East Victoria Street in Santa Barbara (Property) on behalf of Izkina. As alleged in the complaint, Key Zone performed the work under the Contract as agreed, but Izkina failed to pay an outstanding balance of $70,400. (Compl., P.P. 8-10.)
Key Zone recorded a mechanic's lien on the Property in the amount of $70,400. (Compl., P.P. 14-23.) The complaint sets forth five causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) foreclosure on mechanic's lien, (3) quantum meruit, (4) account stated, and (5) open book account. On November 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC), which added Suretec Insurance Company (Suretec) as a Defendant and removed Meadows as a named Defendant. The FAC sets forth five causes of action for (1) enforcement against bond to release mechanic's lien (against Izkina and Suretec), (2) breach of written contract (against Izkina), (3) quantum meruit (against Izkina), (4) account stated (against Izkina), and (5) open book account (against Izkina).
On December 5, 2025, Izkina filed an answer to the FAC generally denying the allegations therein and setting forth 37 affirmative defenses. That same day, Izkina also filed a cross complaint (CC) against Key Zone. The CC alleges that Key Zone breached the Contract by failing to provide a timely and complete work schedule, delaying the coordination of the Contract despite architectural approval, failing to comply with the Project Disbursement Group (PDG) draw procedures, issuing invoices and demands for payment absent documentation, submitting work schedules and invoices and demands for payment of work not done and materials not provided, failing to maintain transparent communication, miscommunicating with PDG, and filing a mechanic's lien absent justification. (CC, P.P. 5-17.)
The CC alleges that Izkina was then forced to hire a new contractor on May 5, 2025, and incur unnecessary expenses. (CC, P. 18.) The CC sets forth four causes of action for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) intentional misrepresentation, and (4) negligent misrepresentation. On January 13, 2026, the parties engaged in an unsuccessful mediation. (Thai Decl., P. 7.) On January 14, 2026, Suretec filed an answer to the FAC generally denying the allegations therein and setting forth 14 affirmative defenses.
On January 21, 2026, counsel for Key Zone requested that Izkina stipulate to the filing of a second amended complaint (SAC). (Thai Decl., P. 7.)
On February 18, 2026, Key Zone filed an answer to the CC generally denying the allegations therein and setting forth 29 affirmative defenses. On February 18, 2026, Plaintiff filed this motion for leave to file a SAC, which seeks to add a sixth cause of action (COA) for fraud against Izkina. (Thai Decl., Ex. 3.) The proposed fraud COA alleges that Key Zone was required to submit its invoices under the Contract to Izkina, who would then submit these invoices to PDG for payment from the lender (Meadows). (SAC, P.P. 42-46.)
The fraud COA alleges that Izkina engaged in a scheme to abscond with the construction funds for its own use by secretly forging Key Zone's signature on payment forms submitted to PDG and using the disbursed funds for Izkina's own purposes rather than paying Key Zone's invoices. (SAC, 48.) The SAC alleges that this forgery scheme was not disclosed to Key Zone and that Izkina affirmatively misrepresented to Key Zone that Key Zone's invoices were being processed for payment. (SAC, P.P. 49-50.) As alleged in the SAC, Key Zone was unaware that Izkina intended to fraudulently take these funds for its own use rather than paying Key Zone's invoices. (SAC, P. 51.)
Had Key Zone known about this forgery scheme and Izkina's intentional misrepresentations about the invoices upon which Key Zone relied, the SAC alleges that Key Zone would not have continued working under the Contract. (SAC, P.P. 51-52.) Izkina opposes Key Zone's motion for leave to file the SAC on the grounds that (1) Izkina would be prejudiced due to Key Zone's unreasonable delay and (2) the proposed fraud COA is futile because it is based on the same facts as the breach of contract COA. Analysis "The Court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to amend any pleading or proceeding by adding or striking out the name of any party, or by correcting a mistake in the name of a party, or a mistake in any other respect ...." (Code Civ.
Proc., Sec. 473.) Leave to file an amended pleading is routinely granted absent unusual circumstances so that cases may be heard on their merits. (See Howard v. County of San Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) "Indeed, it is a rare case in which a Court will be justified in refusing a party leave to amend his pleading so that he may properly present his case. [Citation.] [A]bsent a showing of prejudice to the adverse party, the rule of great liberality in allowing amendment of pleadings will prevail." (S.C. v.
Doe 1 (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 365, 376, internal quotation marks omitted.) As to Izkina's prejudice argument, the parties do not dispute that the proposed fraud COA largely arises out of the same transactions already at issue in this action. Izkina argues that Key Zone was aware of the facts pertaining to the proposed amendments in November or December 2025, but delayed filing a formal motion to amend until February 18, 2026. The Court finds these circumstances do not support a finding of unfair prejudice.
This action is set for trial on November 4, 2026, and it appears that Key Zone acted with reasonable diligence. (Thai Decl., P.P. 2-7.) Izkina will not be deprived of a fair opportunity to defend itself in this action. As to the futility argument raised by Izkina, "when one party commits a fraud during the contract formation or performance, the injured party may recover in contract and tort." (Harris v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 70, 78.) "A Plaintiff may assert a fraudulent concealment cause of action based on conduct occurring in the course of a contractual relationship if the elements of the claim can be established independently of the parties' contractual rights and obligations, and the tortious conduct exposes the Plaintiff to a risk of harm beyond the reasonable contemplation of the parties when they entered into the contract."
Rattagan v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2024) 17 Cal.5th 1, 38.) "The guiding and distinguishing principle is this. If the alleged breach is based on a failure to perform as the contract provides, and the parties reasonably anticipated and allocated the risks associated with the breach, the cause of action will generally sound only in contract because a breach deprives an injured party of a benefit it bargained for. However, if the contract reveals the consequences were not reasonably contemplated when the contract was entered and the duty to avoid causing such a harm has an independent statutory or public policy basis, exclusive of the contract, tort liability may lie." (Id. at p. 27.)
Here, the proposed SAC alleges that Defendants committed multiple instances of fraud by way of forgery during the performance of the contract, absconding with the funds from the lender by forging Key Zone's signature on payment forms. The Court does not find that the proposed amendments are futile on their face in the context of the liberal standard favoring amendment. Izkina can raise its defenses regarding its futility arguments in a responsive pleading or as otherwise allowed under the Code of Civil Procedure.
This will allow these issues to be addressed on their merits.
For all these reasons, the Court will grant Key Zone's motion for leave to file the SAC. Tentative Ruling: Andrea Vicars v. Marborg Industries, et al. Tentative Ruling: Andrea Vicars v. Marborg Industries, et al. Case Number 25CV04624 Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Wed, 05/13/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order Re Special Interrogatories and Request For Production Of Documents Propounded By Defendant Tentative Ruling For Plaintiff Andrea Vicars: R.
Chris Kroes, McCarthy & Kroes For Defendants Marborg Industries and Homero Vences: Maryam Danishwar, Jonathan Semerjian, Clark Hill LLP RULING For the reasons stated herein, the motion of Plaintiff for a protective order re special interrogatories and request for production of documents propounded by Defendant Marborg Industries is granted, in part as to Defendant's amended set one special interrogatory nos. 1, 9 through 14, 16 through 29, 49, and 50; and Defendant's amended set one requests for production of documents and other things nos. 6 (in part and in accordance with this ruling), 11 through 17, 19, 21, and 36 through 39.
Except as herein granted, the motion is otherwise denied. Plaintiff shall submit, for the Court's signature, a proposed order that conforms to the ruling herein. The trial date of 11/25/26 is confirmed - again.
Background
As alleged in the complaint of Plaintiff Andrea Vicars: On April 17, 2025, Marborg Industries (Marborg) came to 850 Clark Road in Santa Barbara, California, to pick up a dumpster. (Complaint, P.P. MV-1, MV-2(f) & GN-1.) During the pickup, the 10,000 pound steel dumpster rolled down the driveway and crashed into Plaintiff's Mercedes Sprinter van, which then was pushed back and into Plaintiff's Lexus, causing significant damage to both vehicles. (Complaint, P. MV-2(f) & GN-1.) On July 24, 2025, Plaintiff filed their complaint against Defendants Marborg and Homero Vences, alleging two causes of action: (1) motor vehicle; and (2) general negligence.
On November 26, 2025, Marborg filed an answer to the complaint, generally denying its allegations and asserting thirty-five affirmative defenses. On December 23, Plaintiff filed a motion for a protective order (the protective order motion) limiting Marborg's special interrogatories to the number permitted by code; limiting Marborg's discovery requests to those which are relevant and do not violate Plaintiff's right to privacy, and precluding Marborg from propounding discovery seeking information regarding personal injuries, emotional distress, financial information, cell phone data, and social media information; limiting Marborg's request for production of documents to those for which good cause is shown; and requiring Marborg to withdraw its declarations for additional discovery.
The motion seeks an award of monetary sanctions against Marborg and its counsel of record. Marborg filed an opposition to the protective order motion, which was calendared for hearing on March 18, 2026. On February 17, 18, and 19, 2026, Plaintiff filed, respectively, a motion for an order (the FI Motion) compelling Marborg to provide further responses to Plaintiff's set one form interrogatories (the FI); a motion for an order (the RFA Motion) compelling Marborg to provide further responses to Plaintiff's set one request for admissions (the RFA); and a motion for an order (the RFP Motion) compelling Marborg to provide further responses to Plaintiff's