Center Point Development Group, Inc. v. Gwendolyn Campbell

Case Number

24CV00306

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 09/10/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

1) Mtn to be Relieved as Counsel; 2) Mtn for Issue, Evidentiary, and Terminating Sanctions; Req for Monetary Sanctions

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Center Point Development, Inc. and Cross-Defendant Anthony Gavin Moores: Jason W. Wansor, R. Scott Mullen, and Paul W. Smigliani                                   

For Defendant and Cross-Complainant Gwendolyn M. Campbell: Bruce D. Rudman                                  

(For other appearances see list.)      

RULING

For the reasons set forth herein:

1. The motion of Defendant Gwendolyn M. Campbell’s counsel to be relieved as counsel is granted. The Court will sign the order provided by Campbell’s attorney.
   1. The order only becomes effective on the date proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the Court.
2. The motion of Plaintiff and cross-Defendant Center Point Development Group, Inc. for Terminating Sanctions is granted as follows:
   1. Gwendolyn M. Campbell’s answer to the complaint of Center Point Development Group, Inc. is stricken, and her default will be entered.
   2. Gwendolyn M. Campbell’s cross-complaint, filed on June 26, 2024, is stricken as to Center Point Development Group, Inc. only.
3. The trial date of 11/19/25, the summary judgment motion set for 10/29/25, the CMC set for 10/22/25, and the MSC set for 10/10/25, are confirmed. 

Background

This action commenced on January 22, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by Plaintiff Center Point Development Group, Inc. dba CP Builders (“CP”) against Defendant Gwendolyn M. Campbell (“Campbell”) for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Open Book Account, (3) Foreclosure on Mechanics Lien, (4) Labor, Services, and Materials, (5) Quantum Meruit, and (6) Unjust Enrichment.

As alleged in the complaint:

Campbell is the owner of residential real property located at 645 El Bosque Rd., Montecito. (Compl., ¶ 2.) CP is a licensed contractor that Campbell contacted, in March 2023, regarding work for a construction project at the property. (Compl., ¶ 6.) The scope of the construction project involved repairs and remediation work that were part of an existing insurance claim filed by Campbell and a remodel of existing structures that were separate from the insurance claim. (Compl., ¶ 6.)

On February 13, 2003, prior to engaging CP, Campbell was provided a budget from her insurance provider for the insurance claim portion of the project in the amount of $989,839.93. (Compl., ¶ 9.) Believing the budget was insufficient, Campbell requested that CP work with her third-party adjuster at The Greenspan Company and her cost estimator at Faunce and Associates to produce a more realistic budget for the insurance claim portion of the project. (Compl., ¶ 9.)

On June 2, 2023, Faunce and Associates provided Campbell and her insurance company with a budget of $2,281,853.00 for the insurance claim portion of the project and on August 29, 2023, Faunce and Associates submitted an updated budget of $3,502,793.59 for the insurance claim portion of the project. (Compl., ¶ 10.) Throughout its time working on the project, CP regularly discussed and provided estimated costs and updated budgets to Campbell and her project team for both the insurance claim and the remodel components of the project. (Compl., ¶ 10.)

After a period of discussions, the project began on April 17, 2023. (Compl., ¶ 11.) On May 26, 2023, CP submitted a cost plus fee construction contract (the “contract”) to Campbell wherein CP specified the scope of work for the renovations and remodel project and the terms of payment. (Compl., ¶ 11.) Under the terms of the contact, CP agreed to act as general contractor on the project and provide labor, services, equipment, and materials for the remediation and remodel portions of the project, and Campbell agreed to pay for such labor, services, equipment, and materials. (Compl., ¶ 11.) Although the contract was never signed by Campbell, both CP and Campbell performed their duties and obligations consistent with the material terms and specifications of the contract. (Compl., ¶ 12.)

From April 2023 to July 2023, work on the project proceeded in a manner typical of the type of the construction, which included multiple changes made and agreed to for the scope and timing of the project. (Compl., ¶ 14.) Campbell and her representatives had frequent and continuous involvement in the project’s plans, modifications, and adjustments, which were complicated by the discovery of certain construction defects from a prior improvement project. (Compl., ¶ 14.)

In August 2023, after approximately five months of steady, undisputed, paid for work on the project, Campbell stopped making payments on the invoices submitted by CP. (Compl., ¶ 15.)

On September 26, 2023, CP sent a demand for payment to Campbell for unpaid invoices in the amount of $719,723.35. (Compl., ¶ 16.) In response, Campbell, through counsel, accused CP of “pocketing” payments made by Campbell that were earmarked for payment to subcontractors hired by CP for work on the project. (Compl., ¶ 16.) CP provided Campbell with a detailed matrix itemizing the various costs for labor and materials, the amounts invoiced, the amounts paid, the amounts still outstanding, and backup documents for all payments made by CP to its subcontractors for work at the property. (Compl., ¶ 16.)

Despite being provided with these records and information, Campbell refused to pay any outstanding invoices or bills for labor and materials expended on the project. (Compl., 17.) The total amount owed, excluding interest, is $771,514.00. (Compl., ¶ 19.)

On June 26, 2024, Campbell answered the complaint with a general denial and 31 affirmative defenses.

Also on June 26, 2024, Campbell filed a cross-complaint against CP, Anthony Gavin Moores, Hudson Insurance Company, and Suretec Insurance Company for: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Rescission, (3) Fraud, (4) Disgorgement, and (5) Claim on License Bond. Since then, there have been other cross-complaints filed, adding additional parties to this action.

CP served Special Interrogatories (Set 1), Form Interrogatories—Construction Litigation (Set 1), and Requests for Production (Set 1) on Campbell on August 8, 2024. Multiple extensions of time were sought and granted, making responses due October 8, 2024. During that time, Campbell’s counsel prepared draft responses to the discovery, and made repeated unsuccessful attempts to contact his client. When he was subsequently able to reach his client on October 10 (2 days after the extended deadline), he was advised that she had undergone a medical procedure, not fully functioning, and was physically incapacitated and unable to assist him with the responses. Having received no response, on November 13, 2024, CP filed motions to compel responses and requested monetary sanctions.

Due to Campbell’s health issues, on January 15, 2025, the hearings on the motions were continued to March 26, 2025. A hearing on a motion to compel responses to requests for admission was also continued to that date. Prior to the continued hearing date, Campbell’s attorney filed a declaration informing the Court that Campbell remained unable to assist in her defense. The declaration was accompanied by a letter from Campbell’s treating physician, Dr. Cantwell, MD, which stated that Dr. Cantwell anticipates that Campbell’s disability will persist for the next 60 days. As a result of the declaration and doctor’s note, the hearings were continued for a second time, with the new date for hearing being June 25, 2025.

On June 25, 2025, with Campbell personally present in Court and presenting oral argument, the Court granted CP’s motion for order deeming admitted the truth of the matters set forth in requests for admission. The three motions to compel responses to special interrogatories, form interrogatories, and requests for production of documents were granted, with Campbell ordered to serve responses, without objections, no later than July 15, 2025. Monetary sanctions were awarded in favor of CP, and against Campbell, in the amount of $2,250.00.

Having still not received responses to the discovery requests, CP filed the present motion, for issue, evidentiary, and terminating sanctions, on July 29, 2025.

Campbell has not filed opposition, or any other response to the motion.

Also on calendar is Campbell’s attorney’s motion for order relieving him as counsel. That motion is unopposed as well. The motion to be relieved as counsel will be addressed first.

Trial of this matter is scheduled for November 19, 2025.

Analysis

1. Motion to be Relieved as Counsel

“The attorney in an action or special proceeding may be changed at any time before or after judgment or final determination, as follows:

“1. Upon the consent of both client and attorney, filed with the clerk, or entered upon the minutes.

“2. Upon the order of the Court, upon the application of either client or attorney, after notice from one to the other.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 284.)

“(a) Notice

A notice of motion and motion to be relieved as counsel under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) must be directed to the client and must be made on the Notice of Motion and Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-051).

“(b) Memorandum

Notwithstanding any other rule of Court, no memorandum is required to be filed or served with a motion to be relieved as counsel.

“(c) Declaration

The motion to be relieved as counsel must be accompanied by a declaration on the Declaration in Support of Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-052). The declaration must state in general terms and without compromising the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship why a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(2) is brought instead of filing a consent under Code of Civil Procedure section 284(1).

“(d) Service

The notice of motion and motion, the declaration, and the proposed order must be served on the client and on all other parties who have appeared in the case. The notice may be by personal service, electronic service, or mail.

“(1) If the notice is served on the client by mail under Code of Civil Procedure section 1013, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating facts showing that either:

“(A) The service address is the current residence or business address of the client; or

“(B) The service address is the last known residence or business address of the client and the attorney has been unable to locate a more current address after making reasonable efforts to do so within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved.

“(2) If the notice is served on the client by electronic service under Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6 and rule 2.251, it must be accompanied by a declaration stating that the electronic service address is the client's current electronic service address.

As used in this rule, “current” means that the address was confirmed within 30 days before the filing of the motion to be relieved. Merely demonstrating that the notice was sent to the client's last known address and was not returned or no electronic delivery failure message was received is not, by itself, sufficient to demonstrate that the address is current. If the service is by mail, Code of Civil Procedure section 1011(b) applies.

“(e) Order

The proposed order relieving counsel must be prepared on the Order Granting Attorney's Motion to Be Relieved as Counsel--Civil (form MC-053) and must be lodged with the Court with the moving papers. The order must specify all hearing dates scheduled in the action or proceeding, including the date of trial, if known. If no hearing date is presently scheduled, the Court may set one and specify the date in the order. After the order is signed, a copy of the signed order must be served on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case. The Court may delay the effective date of the order relieving counsel until proof of service of a copy of the signed order on the client has been filed with the Court.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362.)

As noted above, Campbell’s attorney filed a motion to be relieved as counsel for Campbell. The motion, declaration, and proposed order are all filed on the required judicial council forms. The proof of service shows that Campbell and all other parties that have appeared in this action were properly served, via mail and electronic service, on July 9, 2025.

Campbell’s attorney declares

“There has been an irreparable breakdown in the attorney-client relationship requiring mandatory withdrawal by counsel under Rules of Professional Responsibility Rule 1.16(a)(4), after the client terminated counsel, first in writing by email on June 24, 2025, and then in open Court before the Court and all counsel when she again stated that she had terminated Bruce Rudman and his law firm from representing her in this matter. Prior to the termination and thereafter, the communications between counsel and client demonstrated a lack of trust in counsel, and client wanted to counsel to take actions which were not warranted under the Court Rules or the Code of Civil Procedure. This motion is filed as despite the termination, the client refuses to execute a substitution of attorney form, indicating that counsel is already terminated and the form is unnecessary.” (Rudman Decl., ¶ 2.)

The Court also notes that Campbell informed the Court, at the June 25, 2025 hearings, that she has terminated Rudman as her counsel. She has, however, failed to sign a substitution of attorney.

Finding good cause, the Court will grant the motion to be relieved as Campbell’s counsel. The order will not become effective until proof of service of the signed order on Campbell is filed and served by Rudman.

2. Issue, Evidentiary, and Terminating Sanctions

“California’s pretrial discovery procedures are designed to minimize the opportunities for fabrication and forgetfulness, and to eliminate the need for guesswork about the other side’s evidence, with all doubts about discoverability resolved in favor of disclosure.” (Glenfed Development Corp. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1119.)

Sanctions available for disobeying a Court order to provide discovery responses include: (1) Monetary sanctions; (2) Issue sanctions; (3) Evidence sanctions; (4) Terminating sanctions; and (5) Contempt. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.030.)

If a party “fails to obey an order compelling further responses to interrogatories, the Court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2030.300, subd. (e).)

If a party “fails to obey [an] order compelling a response [to a demand for production of documents], the Court may make those orders that are just, including the imposition of an issue sanction, an evidence sanction, or a terminating sanction.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (c).)

Following previous orders to do so, and imposition of monetary sanctions against her, Campbell has failed to obey orders compelling responses to interrogatories and demands for production of documents.

“If a lesser sanction fails to curb misuse, a greater sanction is warranted: continuing misuses of the discovery process warrant incrementally harsher sanctions until the sanction is reached that will curb the abuse.” (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 992.)

“A Court has broad discretion in selecting the appropriate penalty” for a party’s refusal to obey a discovery order. (Lopez v. Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 566, 604.)

“The trial Court may order a terminating sanction for discovery abuse ‘after considering the totality of the circumstances: [the] conduct of the party to determine if the actions were willful; the detriment to the propounding party; and the number of formal and informal attempts to obtain the discovery.’ [Citation.]” (Creed-21 v. City of Wildomar (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 690, 702.)

“A decision to order terminating sanctions should not be made lightly. But where a violation is willful, preceded by a history of abuse, and the evidence shows that less severe sanctions would not produce compliance with the discovery rules, the trial Court is justified in imposing the ultimate sanction.” (Mileikowsky v. Tenet Healthsystem (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 262, 279–280.)

As noted above, trial in this matter is scheduled to begin on November 19, 2025. CP has been severely prejudiced in its ability to prepare this matter for trial due to Campbell’s continued refusal to respond to discovery for over a year. CP has provided numerous extensions, the Court has given Campbell additional time to provide responses, and Campbell still refuses to provide the discovery responses. Even after the filing of the present motion, Campbell continues in her refusal and has not even filed an opposition to the motion. The Court finds Campbell’s refusals willful and deliberate. It is apparent that lesser sanctions would not produce compliance, and that Campbell is unwilling to participate in this action.

The motion for terminating sanctions will be granted. Campbell’s answer to CP’s complaint will be stricken and her default, as to CP, will be entered. Campbell’s cross-complaint, filed on June 26, 2024, will be stricken as to CP. As terminating sanctions are being granted, the request for further monetary sanctions will be denied.