D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al.

25CV003152: D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 16C

Tentative Ruling

*** If oral argument is requested, the parties must at the time oral argument is requested notify the clerk and opposing counsel of the specific discovery requests that will be addressed at the hearing. Counsel are also reminded that pursuant to local court rules, only limited oral argument is permitted on law and motion matters. ***

Plaintiff D7 Roofing Services, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to compel further responses to special interrogatories from Defendant 4150FlorinPerkins LLC (“4150”) is ruled upon as follows.

This action arises from a roofing project performed by Plaintiff at the real property located at 4150 Florin Perkins, Sacramento, California 95826 (the “Subject Property”). At the time 4150 responded to the special interrogatories, and when Plaintiff filed the instant motion, the first amended complaint (“1AC”) was the operative pleading. The 1AC asserted ten causes of action: (1) foreclosure of mechanics lien; (2) quantum meruit; (3) account stated; (4) monies due; (5) open book account; (6) breach of contract; (7) breach of implied-in-fact contract; (8) breach of oral contract; (9) unjust enrichment; and (10) restitution from transferee based on quasi-contract and unjust enrichment.

As explained in the Court’s ruling on 4150’s demurrer to the 1AC,

Generally, this action arises from a roofing project performed by Plaintiff at the real property located at 4150 Florin Perkins, Sacramento, California 95826 (the “Subject Property”). Plaintiff alleges it submitted a proposal to defendants Jacob Small and Tidal Wave Properties LLC to complete roofing on 26 mechanical units, along with installation of curbs and flashing, for $70,000. (1AC, ¶¶ 8-9, Ex. A.) Mr. Small presented himself as the owner of the Subject Property. (1AC, ¶ 11.) The project was completed on September 12, 2024. Mr. Small and Tidal Wave Properties, LLC were billed, but the invoice was never paid. (1AC, ¶¶ 12- 14, Ex. B.)

On November 13, 2024, a Claim of Mechanics Lien was recorded against the Subject Property in the County of Sacramento. (1AC, ¶ 15, Ex. C.) “On information and belief, at the time Defendant 4150FLORINPERKINS LLC purchased the Subject Property, it had actual or constructive knowledge of the work being performed by or completed by Plaintiff at the Subject Property.” (1AC, ¶ 16.) The 1AC does not allege the date upon which 4150 purchased the Subject Property.

(Minute Order, May 5, 2026.)

25CV003152: D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 16C

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint (“2AC”) on June 9, 2026. In the 2AC, Plaintiff alleges it submitted proposals to defendants Jacobo Small (“Small”) and Tidal Wave Properties LLC (“Tidal Wave”) to complete roofing on 26 mechanical units, along with installation of curbs and flashing, for $70,000. (2AC, ¶¶ 13-14, Ex. A.) Small and Tidal Wave accepted and executed the proposals on or about August 23, 2024 and September 18, 2024. (2AC, ¶ 16, Ex. D.) The project was completed on September 12, 2024. Small and Tidal Wave were billed, but the invoice was never paid. (2AC, ¶¶ 18-19, Ex. B.)

Plaintiff alleges that at all times, 4150 “was dominated, controlled, and operated by Defendant Jason Kristal (“Kristal”),[1] who was Defendant 4150FLORINPERKINS LLC’S managing member and decision-maker.” (2AC, ¶ 20.) In August 2023, Mr. Kristal made a loan to Tidal Wave in the amount of $1.6 million that was secured by the Subject Property. (2AC, ¶ 21.) On or around September 30, 2024, Kristal recorded a Notice of Trustee’s Sale for the Subject Property. The Notice of Trustee’s Sale was to foreclose on the deed of trust recorded on August 25, 2023. (2AC, ¶ 22.)

Plaintiff alleges that on or around November 4, 2024, Tidal Wave sold the Subject Property to 4150, and that at that time both Kristal and 4150 had actual knowledge that Plaintiff performed roofing work that remained unpaid. (2AC, ¶ 25.)

On November 13, 2024, a Claim of Mechanics Lien was recorded against the Subject Property in the County of Sacramento. (2AC, ¶ 26, Ex. C.) Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n information and belief, at the time Defendant 4150FLORINPERKINS LLC purchased the Subject Property, it had actual or constructive knowledge of the work being performed by or completed by Plaintiff at the Subject Property.” (2AC, ¶ 27.)

4150 thereafter filed a Petition for Release of Property from Lien (“Petition”). The trial court denied the petition and awarded Plaintiff attorneys’ fees in the amount of $5,737.50. (2AC, ¶¶ 29, 34.) 4150 has failed to pay the attorneys’ fees. (2AC, ¶ 34.)[2]

On or around May 9, 2025, 4150 sold the Subject Property to defendant Home With K & K LLC (“Home”).[3] (2AC, ¶ 32.)

While this litigation was pending, Kristal caused 4150 to be dissolved. (2AC, ¶ 35.) [4]

As against 4150, the 2AC asserts causes of action for foreclosure of mechanics lien, quantum meruit, breach of implied-in-fact contract, unjust enrichment, restitution from transferee based on quasi-contract and unjust enrichment, Corporations Code section 17707.07 (member liability of

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003152: D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 16C

dissolved Limited Liability Company), violation of Civil Code section 3439.04; CACI 4200/4201, and fraud.

No trial date is scheduled.

Plaintiff moves to compel 4150’s further responses to special interrogatories (“SROGs”) 11-20.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.210, [5] a party shall respond in writing under oath separately to each interrogatory by any of the following:

(1) An answer containing the information sought to be discovered. (2) An exercise of the party’s option to produce writings. (3) An objection to the particular interrogatory.

A propounding party may move to compel a further response to an interrogatory, if the propounding party deems that any of the following apply:

(1) An answer to a particular interrogatory is evasive or incomplete.

(2) An exercise of the option to produce documents under Section 2030.230 is unwarranted or the required specification of those documents is inadequate.

(3) An objection to an interrogatory is without merit or too general.

(Code Civ. Proc., §2030.300 subd. (a).)

Section 2030.220 requires that responses to Interrogatories be as complete and straightforward as the information reasonably available to the responding party permits, and “if an interrogatory cannot be answered completely, it shall be answered to the extent possible.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.220(a)-(b); see also Deyo v. Kilbourne (1978) 84 Cal.App.3d 771, 788-89.) If the responding party does not have personal knowledge sufficient to respond to the interrogatory, “that party shall so state, but shall make a reasonable and good faith effort to obtain the information by inquiry to other natural persons or organizations, except where the information is equally available to the propounding party.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 2030.220(c).)

Analysis

The interrogatories at issue concern 4150’s sale of the Subject Property to Home. Specifically,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003152: D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 16C

Plaintiff requested:

 The amount that 4150 sold the Subject Property to Home. (SROG 11.)  A detailed description of how the sale proceeds were distributed after 4150 sold the Subject Property to Home. (SROG 12.)  The identity of all persons who received any distribution from 4150’s sale of the Subject Property to Home. (SROG 13.)  The amount each person received from 4150’s sale of the Subject Property to Home. (SROG 14.)  A statement whether any of 4150’s debts were paid from 4150’s sale of the Subject Property to Home. (SROG 15.)  A statement whether any of 4150’s liabilities were paid from 4150’s sale of the Subject Property to Home. (SROG 16.)  A statement whether any taxes were paid from 4150’s sale of the Subject Property to Home. (SROG 17.)  Identification of any remaining assets held by 4150 after the sale of the Subject Property to Home. (SROG 18.)  Identification of any bank accounts into which sale proceeds were deposited after the sale of the Subject Property to Home. (SROG 19.)  A description of the terms of the sale to Home, including any financing arrangements, conditions, or contingencies. (SROG 20.)

4150 generally objected to all of the SROGs on the ground that they exceeded the number of SROGs.

4150 asserted the specific objections to SROGs 11-17, 19-20 as follows:

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and seeks information not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant information.

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information related to Defendant’s finances and business that is private, privileged, and/or confidential and which has no relevance to this matter.

(See Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, SROGs 11-20.)[6]

4150’s response to SROG 18 stated:

Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it is overbroad and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003152: D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 16C

seeks information not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant information. Defendant objects to this Interrogatory on the grounds that it seeks information related to Defendant's finances and business that is private, privileged, and/or confidential and which has no relevance to this matter. Without waiving said objections, Defendant responds as follows: Defendant is dissolved.

(Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, SROG 18.)

Plaintiff suggests that information regarding the sales price, and the manner in which 4150 used/distributed the sales proceeds, is directly relevant and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because:

[a]s a lien claimant, Plaintiff is entitled to discovery related to the sale of the property since it will establish whether the parties acted in a manner that undermined Plaintiff’s lien rights, such as a failure to allocate sale proceeds to satisfy the lien. . . . Despite the existence of the recorded mechanics’ lien, Defendant sold the property to Home With K & K LLC and subsequently dissolved and terminated its company while debts and obligations remained. The sale price is therefore relevant to determine the amount Defendant received from the sale and how those assets were distributed.

(Motion, 3:10-13.)

Plaintiff adds that the information is also directly relevant to determining how 4150 prioritized the distribution of the funds, while failing to satisfy Plaintiff’s mechanics lien.

Plaintiff lastly contends that, given its Corporations Code section 17707.07 cause of action, the dissolved LLC and its members are subject to enforcement of claims involving winding up and distribution of assets, which makes 4150’s assets, the distribution of the sales proceeds, and whether 4150 improperly distributed the sales proceeds rather than applying them to prioritize Plaintiff’s mechanics lien and judgment for attorneys’ fees, reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

4150 opposes the motion.

It claims that the case is not yet at issue because it has a demurrer pending to the 2AC, no defendant has answered, and Kristal has not been served. It continues that Plaintiff is not entitled to the details of any of the sales proceeds because “[a]n owner of a property with a mechanics lien may lawfully sell and dispose of the property subject to an existing mechanics lien,” and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003152: D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 16C

Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that Home purchased the Subject Property subject to the mechanics lien. (Opposition, 3:17-19 citing Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.3d 803, 811.) 4150 further notes that the allegations regarding the judgment for attorneys’ fees and Plaintiff’s reliance on Corporations Code section 17707.07 do not create grounds for discovery because none were asserted in the 1AC. 4150 further argues that Plaintiff exceeded the number of SROGs allowed,[7] and that the SROGs implicate 4150 and its members’ (including Kristal’s) protected and private personal financial information.

Preliminarily, to the extent 4150 contends that discovery should not be permitted because the case is not yet at issue, the Court rejects that argument. The right to discovery generally does not depend on the status of the pleadings. (Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 1429, 1437, fn. 3.) Further, concerns regarding the right to privacy are lessened by a stipulated protective order.

Nonetheless, 4150 has persuaded the Court that, at the time 4150 served its responses to the SROGs, the SROGs were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Most of Plaintiff’s arguments hinge on 4150’s dissolution and Corporations Code section 17707.07. Yet, there were no allegations in the 1AC regarding 4150’s dissolution, and importantly, no Corporations Code section 17707.07 cause of action was asserted in the 1AC. The Court finds that, at the time 4150 responded to the SROGs, the objection that the SROGs were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence was meritorious. Based on Plaintiff’s arguments, it appears that the appropriate discovery tool is to propound supplemental interrogatories or a new set of interrogatories.

Additionally, Plaintiff conclusorily argues that it requires the sales price and terms of the sale, as well as the allocation of the sale proceeds to evaluate 4150’s financial condition, to assess whether the mechanic’s lien was considered in the purchase of the Subject Property, and whether 4150 and Home had notice of the mechanic’s lien. Plaintiff fails to provide any legal authority explaining how the information requested in the SROGs connects to the causes of action in the 1AC for foreclosure of mechanics lien, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, or restitution.

Accordingly, the motion to compel further responses is DENIED.

Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions is DENIED.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

NOTICE:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003152: D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 16C

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Department 16C Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-1475 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below.

If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court. Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings.

The Department 16C Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16030877014 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 3087 7014. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed on the Court Reporter Services webpage available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://saccourt.ca.gov/general-information/court-reporter-services-transcripts. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://saccourt.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/227/639084034465370000.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV003152: D7 ROOFING SERVICES, INC. vs TIDAL WAVE PROPERTIES, LLC, et al. 09/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to Compel Further Discovery Responses to Special Interrogatories in Department 16C

[1] Kristal was named as Doe 2 on June 8, 2026. [2] The allegations regarding the Petition and award of attorneys’ fees were first asserted in the

2AC. [3] Home was named as Doe 1 on June 26, 2025. The Court sustained with leave to amend,

Home’s demurrer to the 1AC on May 21, 2026, finding that, “[t]he only factual allegations contained in the FAC concerning K&K’s involvement in the action are the Doe allegations made in paragraphs 5 and 6. These allegations are conclusory and, therefore, insufficient to support a cause of action being stated against it.” (Minute Order, May 21, 2026.) [4] The allegations regarding 4150’s dissolution and the corresponding causes of action related to

the dissolution were first asserted in the 2AC. [5] Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. [6] 4150’s objection to SROG 17 also stated that its taxes are private, privileged, and/or

confidential. 4150’s objection to SROG 19 also stated that its banking information is private, privileged, and/or confidential. [7] As explained above, 4150 generally objected to the entirety of the SROGs on the ground that

Plaintiff exceeded the permitted number of interrogatories. A general objection that the SROGs exceed the number of interrogatories, however, is improper. Section 2030.030(c) states, “[u]nless a declaration as described in Section 2030.050 has been made, a party need only respond to the first 35 specially prepared interrogatories served, if that party states an objection to the balance, under Section 2030.240, on the ground that the limit has been exceeded.” Section 2030.240(b) requires that “[i]f an objection is made to an interrogatory or to a part of an interrogatory, the specific ground for the objection shall be set forth clearly in the response.” 4150’s objection is OVERRULED.