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 Home With K&K LLC (“Home”) 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 Home 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. Plaintiff named Home as Doe 1 to the 1AC on June 26, 2025.

As explained in the Court’s ruling on co-defendant 4150FlorinPerkins LLC’s (“4150”) 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.

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

(Minute Order, May 5, 2026.)

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 Home.[3] (2AC, ¶ 32.)

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

As against Home, the 2AC asserts causes of action for foreclosure of mechanics lien, quantum meruit, breach of implied-in-fact contract, and unjust enrichment.

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

No trial date is scheduled.

Plaintiff moves to compel Home’s further responses to special interrogatories (“SROGs”) 3 and 9.

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(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 Home’s purchase of the Subject Property from 4150. Specifically, Plaintiff requested:

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

 The purchase price Home paid for the Subject Property. (SROG 3.)  A description of the terms of the purchase of the Property, including any financing arrangements, conditions, or contingencies. (SROG 9.)

Home generally objected to all of the SROGs on the grounds that they exceeded the number of permitted SROGs.

Home asserted the specific objections SROGs 3 and 9 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 3 and 9.)[6]

Plaintiff insists that the sales price is directly relevant to its claims because:

Plaintiff performed roofing work on the property and recorded a mechanic’s lien, which remains unpaid. Despite the existence and viability of the lien, 4150 FlorinPerkins LLC knowingly sold the property without satisfying Plaintiff’s lien, and the purchase price paid by Defendant is necessary to determine whether sufficient funds existed from the sale to satisfy Plaintiff’s claim. Moreover, Plaintiff suspects that the purchase price includes the value of a new roof.

(Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, 2:27-3:4.)

Plaintiff adds that the terms of the purchase are directly relevant because:

The requested information is directly relevant to Plaintiff’s claims, as Plaintiff performed roofing work on the property, recorded a mechanic’s lien, which remains unpaid. Plaintiff needs to know whether Defendant purchased the property subject to any liens, including Plaintiff’s mechanic’s lien, in order to determine Defendant’s potential obligations and rights with respect to the property and satisfaction of liens which run with the land.

Further, in determining the terms of the purchase price, such as whether the

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

purchase was financed or whether the purchase was made subject to any liens and encumbrances, Plaintiff will be able to ascertain Defendant’s scope of knowledge of liens at the time of completing the purchase. Additionally, a code compliant response to this interrogatory will describe whether any elaborate measures were taken to evade paying the lien at issue, a point which Plaintiff strongly suspects occurred between 4150FlorinPerkins LLC and HOME WITH K & K LLC.

(Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, 4:2-13.)

Home opposes the motion.

It claims that the case is not yet at issue because it has a demurrer pending to the 2AC. 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 Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that Home purchased the Subject Property subject to the mechanics lien. (Opposition, 3:18-19 citing Connolly Development, Inc. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.3d 803, 811.) Home further argues that Plaintiff exceeded the number of SROGs allowed,[7] and that the details of Home’s financial transactions are protected and private personal financial information. Home lastly contends that the motion should be denied because the 1AC did not mention Home, and there were no allegations that 4150 sold the Subject Property to Home.

Preliminarily, to the extent Home 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, Home has persuaded the Court that at the time Home served its responses to the SROGs, the SROGs were not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff’s arguments hinge on the assertion that Home purchased the Subject Property. Yet, there were no allegations in the 1AC that 4150 had sold the Subject Property, or that Home had purchased the Subject Property. The Court finds that, at the time Home 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, to determine whether sufficient funds existed from the sale to satisfy Plaintiff’s claims, Home’s

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

scope of knowledge of the liens, and whether measures were taken to evade paying the lien. Plaintiff fails to provide any legal authority explaining how the information requested in the SROGs connect 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:

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

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

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.

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

2AC. [3] The allegations regarding the sale of the Subject Property to Home was first asserted in the

2AC. 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] Home also objected to SROG 9 on the ground that “the terms of the sale, financing

arrangements, conditions, and contingencies are not relevant.” [7] As explained above, Home 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.” Home’s objection on this ground is OVERRULED.