Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00003/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-00003-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 28:1330 Breach of Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for

the Use and Benefit of PENN AIR

CONTROL INC., a California

Corporation,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16cv0003-WQH-NLS

ORDER

v.

BILBRO CONSTRUCTION

COMPANY, INC., a California

corporation, and INTERNATIONAL

FIDELITY INSURANCE

COMPANY, a New Jersey

corporation,

Defendant.

BILBRO CONSTRUCTION

COMPANY, INC., a California

corporation

 Counterclaim Plaintiff,

 v.

PENN AIR CONTROL INC., a

California Corporation, and ALPHA

MECHANICAL, INC., a California

corporation,

 Counterclaim Defendants,

- 1 - 16cv0003-WQH-NLS

Case 3:16-cv-00003-WQH-NLS Document 95 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ALPHA MECHANICAL, INC., a

California corporation

 Counterclaim Plaintiff,

 v.

BILBRO CONSTRUCTION

COMPANY, INC., a California

corporation; FERGUSON PAPE

BALDWIN ARCHITECTS, INC., a

California corporation; SPARLING,

INC., a Washington corporation;

SHADPOUR CONSULTING

ENGINEERS, INC., a California

corporation and DOES 1 through 10,

 Counterclaim Defendants,

HAYES, Judge:

The matters before the Court are the Motions to Dismiss filed by Counterclaim

Defendants Ferguson Pape Baldwin Architects, Inc. (ECF No. 56) and Sparling Inc.

(ECF No. 59). 

I. Procedural Background

On July 17, 2015, Penn Air Control, Inc. (“Penn Air”) initiated this action by

filing a complaint against Bilbro Construction Company, Inc. (“Bilbro”) and

International Fidelity Insurance Company (“Fidelity”) alleging: (1) breach of contract;

(2) quantum meruit; (3) imposition of statutory penalties; and (4) recovery under Miller

Act Payment bond. (ECF No. 1). Penn Air seeks damages incurred from nonpayment

for serviced performed during the renovation of the Watkins Hall, Building 245, Naval

Support Activity Monterey, California (“the Project”). 

On October 19, 2015, Bilbro filed a counterclaim against Penn Air and Alpha

Mechanical, Inc. (“Alpha”). (ECF No. 17). Bilbro alleges claims for breach of contract

and declaratory relief against both Alpha and Penn Air and seeks damages as a result

of the failure to achieve noise levels that complied with the noise level limits for the

Project. Bilbro alleges additional claims against Alpha including: (1) full indemnity;

(2) partial indemnity; and (3) unjust enrichment. 

On January 19, 2016, Alpha filed a counterclaim against Bilbro, Ferguson Pape

- 2 - 16cv0003-WQH-NLS

Case 3:16-cv-00003-WQH-NLS Document 95 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Baldwin Architects (“FPBA”), Sparling, Inc. (“Sparling”), and Shadpour Consulting

Engineers (“SC Engineers”). (ECF No. 45). Alpha’s counterclaim includes causes of

action for (1) breach of contract against Bilbro; (2) breach of fiduciary duty against

Bilbro; (3) negligence against Bilbro, FPBA, and Sparling; (3) full indemnity against

SC Engineers; and (5) partial indemnity against SC Engineers. 

On February 12, 2016, FPBA filed a motion to dismiss Alpha’s negligence

counterclaim. (ECF No. 56). This is the only claim alleged by Alpha against FPBA. 

On March 1, 2016, Alpha filed an opposition. (ECF No. 68). On March 7, 2016, FPBA

filed a reply. (ECF No. 71). On March 7, 2016, FPBA filed a request for oral

argument. (ECF No. 72). 

On February 12, 2016, Sparling filed a motion to dismiss Alpha’s negligence

counterclaim. (ECF No. 59). This is the only claim alleged by Alpha against Sparling. 

On March 7, 2016, Alpha filed an opposition. (ECF No. 73). On March 14, 2016,

Sparling filed a reply. (ECF No. 75). 

On June 2, 2016, the Court held oral argument on the Motions to Dismiss. (ECF

No. 89). 

II. Allegations in Alpha’s Counterclaim (ECF No. 45)

On April 20, 2012, the Department of the Navy, Navy Facility Engineering

Command Southwest, (the “Navy”) awarded Bilbro with the prime contract for the

renovation of the Watkins Hall, Building 245, Naval Support Activity Monterey,

California for the amount of $7,321,712.00 (“the Project”). (ECF No. 45 ¶ 10). As the

Prime Contractor, Bilbro “contracted with FPBA to provide architectural design

services for the Project, designating FPBA as the Designer of Record for the Project.” 

Id. ¶ 12. “FPBA contracted with Sparling, whereby Sparling, as an acoustical

consultant, was to provide guidance and review of acoustical issues on the Project.” Id.

¶ 13. Bilbro also entered into a “written subcontract with Alpha designating Alpha as

a subcontractor on the Project . . . .” Id. ¶ 14. Alpha cosigned a performance bond and

a payment bond with Bilbro. Id. ¶ 16. 

- 3 - 16cv0003-WQH-NLS

Case 3:16-cv-00003-WQH-NLS Document 95 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“Under the design quality control plan Alpha was to submit its design-build plans

to FPBA, the Designer of Record, and Bilbro, the Prime Contractor, for review and

approvals.” Id. ¶ 17. “Subsequently, Bilbro would submit the final proposal to the

Navy for approval.” Id. 

“Alpha entered into a written agreement with SC Engineers, a consulting

engineering firm, to design the mechanical system for the Project in accordance with

the terms and conditions of their agreement . . . .” Id. ¶ 18.

“The design-build submittal and review was divided into stages of 35%, 75% and

100% design completions.” Id. ¶ 19. “With every stage, Alpha would submit the

proposed plans to Bilbro and would receive commentary, changes and revisions from

Bilbro, FPBA and Sparling.” Id. 

“On or about October 30, 2012, Sparling conducted an onsite review of the plans

and designs and noted a potential issue with noise levels in eight rooms.” Id. ¶ 20. 

“The anticipated noise was attributed to fan noise and air handling units in the proposed

HVAC system.” Id. 

“From October 30, 2012 to April 3, 2013, Sparling, FPBA and Bilbro discussed

this concern with Alpha and SC Engineers and proposed several recommendations to

address the anticipated noise issue in these 8 isolated rooms with Alpha implementing

their recommendations.” Id. ¶ 21. “Although Alpha had its subcontract with Bilbro,

Alpha regularly received communications from Sparling and FPBA either directly from

Sparling and FPBA or as a forward by Bilbro.” Id. 

“On April 3, 2013, Bilbro notified Alpha that it received the 100% design

approval and was ready to proceed with construction.” Id. ¶ 22. “The communications

between FPBA, Bilbro, Sparling, SC Engineers and Alpha continued, with Sparling

suggesting several mitigation techniques and FPBA providing drawings of possible

enclosures of air handling units to lower the potential noise level.” Id. ¶ 23. These

communications were sent directly to Alpha or forwarded to Alpha by Bilbro. Id. 

Alpha “commenced the performance of its services pursuant to the approved drawings

- 4 - 16cv0003-WQH-NLS

Case 3:16-cv-00003-WQH-NLS Document 95 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and under the Alpha Subcontract.” Id. ¶ 24. 

After Alpha completed its work, “the Navy noted that 23 of the rooms in the

Watkins Hall exceeded Navy’s noise level requirements.” Id. ¶ 26. “None of the 23

rooms were noted as a potential problem by Bilbro, FPBA and Sparling during their

review, revision and subsequent approvals of Alpha’s proposed designs and

equipment.” Id. “[T]he 8 rooms initially noted as a potential problem did not exceed

the required noise level threshold and were not included in the list of the 23 rooms

noted by the Navy.” Id. 

“To address the exceeding noise levels, Bilbro, FPBA and Sparling provided

Alpha with various suggestions . . . on how to reduce the noise levels in the individual

rooms.” Id. ¶ 27. As a result, “Alpha had to purchase new equipment, remove prior

installations, install new materials, purchase additional supplies and to remobilize its

crew at least on four separate occasions during the period of August 2014 through May

2015.” Id. The solutions did not effectively reduce the noise levels and the Navy

refused to accept the Project. Id. ¶ 28.

“[I]n April of 2015 Alpha engaged its own acoustical experts and presented

Bilbro with the suggested solution for the remaining rooms with elevated noise levels.” 

Id. ¶ 29. “Instead of implementing Alpha’s proposed plan, on May 22, 2015 Bilbro

terminated Alpha’s Subcontract and withheld $323,352.00 still owing to Alpha.” Id.

¶ 30. “Having its subcontract terminated, Alpha was precluded from access to the

Project and the ability to implement its proposed changes.” Id. ¶ 31. 

“Despite being precluded from the Project, Alpha remained a cosigner on the

performance bond and payment bond for the Project.” Id. ¶ 32. “Alpha requested

Bilbro to update Alpha on the progress of the Project and payments to all other

subcontractors, but Bilbro refused.” Id. “As a result of Bilbro’s refusal, Alpha was and

continues to incur damages of having to address demands by other subcontractors

against the payment bond.” Id. 

Alpha alleges that FPBA and Sparling were negligent by, “among other things,

- 5 - 16cv0003-WQH-NLS

Case 3:16-cv-00003-WQH-NLS Document 95 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

failing to meet the applicable standard of care due in performing their professional

services, failing to properly inspect the designs on the Project prior to their approvals,

failing to detect problems with the designs prior to the completion of the work, failing

to retain properly-trained professionals, failing to effectively manage the job site and

various subcontractors, failing to provide proper and effective solutions to address the

elevated noise levels, and negligently performing services as described above.” Alpha

seeks damages in the amount of approximately $1,121,564.57 for costs incurred due to

additional labor performed and materials supplied for the Project. Id. ¶ 50. 

III. Legal Standards

A. Standard of Review

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits dismissal for “failure to state

a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 8(a) provides that “[a] pleading that states a claim for relief must

contain ... a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “A district court’s dismissal for failure to state a

claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is proper if there is a ‘lack of a

cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable

legal theory.’” Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1242 (9th Cir. 2011)

(quoting Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990)).

“[A] plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’

requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements

of a cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

(quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must

contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is

plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly,

550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual

content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citation omitted). “[T]he tenet that a court must

- 6 - 16cv0003-WQH-NLS

Case 3:16-cv-00003-WQH-NLS Document 95 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal

conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Id. (citation omitted). “When there are

well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity and then

determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. at 679. “In

sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory factual content,

and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim

entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir.

2009) (quotations and citation omitted). 

B. Negligence

Under California law, to establish a claim for negligence a plaintiff must plead

(1) duty; (2) breach of duty; (3) causation; and (4) damages. Ileto v. Glock Inc., 349

F.3d 1191, 1203 (9th Cir. 2003). In this motion, the first element, duty, is at issue. 

“The threshold element of a cause of action for negligence is the existence of a

duty to use due care toward an interest of another that enjoys legal protection against

unintentional invasion.” Bily v. Arthur Young & Co., 834 P.2d 745, 760 (Cal. 1992). 

A duty of care may arise through statute, contract, the general character of the activity

in which the defendant engaged, or the relationship between the parties. J'Aire Corp.

v. Gregory, 598 P.2d 60, 61 (Cal. 1979). “Courts are reluctant to impose duties to

prevent economic harm to third parties because ‘[a]s a matter of economic and social

policy, third parties should be encouraged to rely on their own prudence, diligence and

contracting power, as well as other information tools.’” The Ratcliff Architects v. Vanir

Constr. Mgmt., Inc., 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 1, 8 (Ct. App. 2001) (citing Bily, 834 P.2d at

765). However, “[c]ourts sometimes impose a duty to prevent pure economic loss when

there is no privity of contract when the injured party is an intended beneficiary of a

contract between the defendant and another party.” Id. 

In this case, there is no contractual privity or applicable statute, therefore Alpha

must allege facts which establish the existence of a “special relationship” giving rise to

- 7 - 16cv0003-WQH-NLS

Case 3:16-cv-00003-WQH-NLS Document 95 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a legal duty of care. See id. To assess whether there is a “special relationship” in the

absence of privity of contract, California courts balance six factors: (1) the extent to

which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, (2) the foreseeability of harm

to the plaintiff, (3) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, (4) the

closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered,

(5) the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, and (6) the policy of

preventing future harm. See Biakanja v. Irving, 320 P.2d 16, 19 (1958). 

IV. Discussion

A. Motion to Dismiss Filed by FPBA (ECF No. 56)

FPBA contends that Alpha cannot state a claim for negligence because Alpha

cannot establish that FPBA owes Alpha a duty of care. (ECF No. 56-1). FPBA

contends that FPBA and Alpha “are not in contractual privity, and there are no facts

pled establishing a ‘special relationship’ between FPBA and Alpha.” Id. at 4. 

Alpha contends that FPBA owed Alpha a duty of care because there was a

“special relationship” between FPBA and Alpha giving rise to a legal duty of care. 

(ECF No. 68). Alpha contends that the “contract entered into by Alpha and Bilbro,

specifically stated that Alpha’s work was to be done based on plans and specifications

of FPBA.” Id. at 17. Alpha contends that “FPBA created, reviewed, changed, approved

and commented on the design-built plans implemented by Alpha . . . .” Id. Alpha

contends that there are “no claims that Alpha deviated from the plans and specifications

created and approved by FPBA . . . .” Id. at 9.

In State Ready Mix, Inc. v. Moffatt & Nichol, 181 Cal. Rptr. 3d 921 (Ct. App.

2015), Bellingham Marine, Inc., a marine project manager, hired Major Engineering

Marine, Inc. (“Major”), to construct a pier. Bellingham hired Moffatt & Nichol

(“Moffatt”), a civil engineering firm, to prepare the plans for the pier. Major hired State

Ready Mix, Inc. to supply the concrete. State Ready Mix submitted the concrete mix

design to Major and, at the request of Major, Moffatt reviewed and approved of the

concrete mix design although it was not part of Moffatt’s job duties. It was later

- 8 - 16cv0003-WQH-NLS

Case 3:16-cv-00003-WQH-NLS Document 95 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 8 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

determined that the concrete supplied was defective and the concrete had to be removed

and replaced. After investigation, State Ready Mix reported that its equipment had

experienced a mechanical failure and that State Ready Mix had made a mistake when

it manually mixed the concrete. No facts alleged that Moffatt knew or should have

known that State deviated from the approved mix design. 

Major sued State Ready Mix for the cost of the repairs and State Ready Mix

countersued Moffatt for equitable indemnity and contribution. The trial court sustained

Moffatt’s demurrer without leave to amend. On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed. 

Applying the Biakanja factors, the court determined that “[t]he Biakanja argument fails

on every factor.” Id. at 926. The courted noted that Moffatt’s review of the concrete

was a “gratuitous” service and intended to benefit Bellingham, the project manager. Id.

at 927. The Court noted that “[a]ll the contractual duties allegedly assumed by Moffatt

were intended to benefit Bellingham, not State or Major.” Id. The Court noted that

Moffatt’s review of the concrete mix design “was not the cause of the bad concrete,”

rather, State Ready’s deviation from the approved mix caused the concrete to fail the

project specifications. Id.

In this case, under the first Biakanja factor, Alpha alleges that the contractual

scope of Alpha’s work on the Project was specifically defined as “Design/Build

Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical plus Overall Project Superintendence from plans and

specifications by FPBA . . . .” (ECF No. 45 ¶ 14). Alpha alleges that FPBA was to

review, revise, and approve all of Alpha’s suggestions and recommendation on the

Project and that Alpha was to implement FPBA’s decisions. Unlike in State Ready Mix,

in this case there are no facts alleged that Alpha deviated from the plans and

specifications created and approved by FPBA. See State Ready Mix, 181 Cal. Rptr. 3d

at 927 (“State deviated from the approved mix design.”). Alpha could not have

performed its contract with Bilbro without utilizing the plans that FPBA reviewed. 

Thus, FPBA’s performance was intended to affect Alpha. This factor weighs in favor

of imposing a duty of care.

- 9 - 16cv0003-WQH-NLS

Case 3:16-cv-00003-WQH-NLS Document 95 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 9 of 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The second Biakanja factor, foreseeability of harm, is present. Alpha alleges that

“Alpha was to submit its design-build plans to FPBA, the Designer of Record, and

Bilbro, the Prime Contractor, for review and approvals.” (ECF No. 45 ¶ 17). Alpha

alleges that it discussed the potential noise issues with FPBA, Sparling, and Bilbro, and

that they “proposed several recommendations to address the anticipated noise issue . .

. with Alpha implementing their recommendations.” Id. ¶ 21. Alpha alleges that

“FPBA provid[ed] drawings of possible enclosures of air handling units to lower the

potential noise levels” and that these communications “were sent directly to Alpha or

forward to Alpha by Bilbro.” Id. ¶ 23. It was foreseeable that any negligence in the

recommendations and drawings modified by FPBA would adversely affect Alpha,

which was contractually obligated to use FPBA’s plans. 

The third and fourth Biakanja factor, certainty of injury and the closeness of the

connection between FPBA’s conduct and the injury suffered, weigh in favor of

imposing a duty of care. Alpha alleges that it submitted all its plans to Bilbro and

received “commentary, changes and revisions from Bilbro, FPBA and Sparling.” (ECF

No. 45 ¶ 19). Alpha alleges that FPBA “proposed several recommendations to address

the anticipated noise issue” and that Alpha “implement[ed] their recommendations.” 

Id. ¶ 21. Alpha alleges that FPBA noted potential issues in the drawings, but did not

note 23 rooms which exceeded the noise level requirement thereby contributing to

Alpha’s damages. Alpha alleges that after the noise issues were identified, FPBA

provided Alpha with various suggestions, which failed to solve the noise issues. Alpha

alleges that as a result, Bilbro terminated Alpha’s Subcontract, refusing to pay Alpha

$323,352, and refusing to compensate Alpha for additional work done to try to resolve

the noise issues. Alpha alleges that it has suffered damages estimated at approximately

$1,121,564.57. Based on those allegations, FPBA had knowledge that its actions could

cause Alpha injury. 

The fifth factor, moral blame, has no application in this case because the

relationships involve arm’s length transactions and Alpha has not alleged any facts to

- 10 - 16cv0003-WQH-NLS

Case 3:16-cv-00003-WQH-NLS Document 95 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 10 of

 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

support a claim that FPBA acted in bad faith. 

In assessing the last factor, policy of preventing future harm, the California

Supreme Court has held that “[a]s a matter of economic and social policy, third parties

should be encouraged to rely on their own prudence, diligence, and contracting power.” 

Bily, 834 P.2d at 765. Alpha is a sophisticated actor and had a responsibility to protect

itself. However, in this case, Alpha alleges that it was contracted by Bilbro to use plans

and specifications provided by FPBA. Alpha alleges that any of its proposed plans had

to be submitted to Bilbro and would receive commentary, changes, and revisions from

FPBA. While these allegations do not relieve Alpha of its duty to protect itself, they

favor giving less weight to this factor. See Apex Directional Drilling, LLC v. SHN

Consulting Engineers & Geologists, Inc., 119 F. Supp. 3d 1117, 1126 (N.D. Cal. 2015)

(giving less weight to the final Biakanja factor where the plaintiff relied on the

defendant’s report on soil conditions and had little time to conduct an independent

investigation of the soil conditions). 

The Court concludes that Alpha has alleged facts sufficient to find that there was

a special relationship between Alpha and FBPA. Alpha was contractually obligated by

Bilbro to use FPBA’s plans. See Ratcliff, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 8 (“Courts sometimes

impose a duty to prevent pure economic loss when there is no privity of contract when

the injured party is an intended beneficiary of a contract between the defendant and

another party.”). There is no allegation that Alpha deviated from the FPBA-approved

plans. See State Ready Mix, 181 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 927 (finding that there was not a

special relationship where the plaintiff deviated from the plan approved by the

defendant). Alpha has alleged sufficient facts to infer that FPBA owed Alpha a legal

duty of care. FPBA’s motion to dismiss Alpha’s claim for negligence is denied.

B. Motion to Dismiss Filed by Sparling (ECF No. 59)

Sparling contends that Alpha cannot state a claim for negligence because Alpha

“failed to plead and cannot plead facts” to establish that Sparling owed Alpha a legal

duty of care. (ECF No. 59-1). Sparling contends that it was not in contractual privity

- 11 - 16cv0003-WQH-NLS

Case 3:16-cv-00003-WQH-NLS Document 95 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 11 of

 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

with Alpha and that there are no facts pled to establish that there was a special

relationship between Alpha and Sparling. 

Alpha contends that there was a “special relationship” between Sparling and

Alpha. (ECF No. 73). Alpha contends that Sparling was retained by FPBA to provide 

acoustic expertise which was passed on to subcontractors, such as Alpha. Alpha

contends that Sparling communicated directly with Alpha to prevent and attempt to

mitigate noise issues. 

With regard to the first Biakanja factor, Alpha alleges that Sparling was hired by

FPBA “to provide guidance and review acoustical issues on the Project.” Id. ¶ 13. In

this case, the Complaint alleges FPBA hired Sparling to propose recommendations on

how to address noise issues. Although the Complaint alleges that Sparling contacted

Alpha directly, at times, Alpha has not alleged facts to support the inference that

Sparling’s services, rendered pursuant to its contract with FPBA, were intended to

affect Alpha. 

Under the second Biakanja factor, foreseeability of harm, Alpha alleges that

“Sparling suggest[ed] several mitigation techniques and FPBA provided drawings,” and

Alpha alleges that, at times, Sparling communicated directly with Alpha. (ECF No. 45

¶ 23). Alpha alleges that as a result of the various “suggestions” from Bilbro, FPBA,

and Sparling, Alpha “purchas[ed] new equipment, remov[ed] prior installations,

install[ed] new materials, purchas[ed] additional supplies and . . . remobiliz[ed] its crew

at least on four separate occasions . . . .” Id. ¶ 27. Alpha has alleged sufficient facts to

find that it is foreseeable that Alpha, relying on Sparling’s suggestions, could suffer

economic injury. However, the alleged facts are not sufficient to infer that it was

foreseeable to Sparling that Alpha would act upon Sparling’s “suggestions.”

The third and fourth Biakanja factor, certainty of injury and the closeness of the

connection between Sparling’s conduct and the injury suffered, weigh against imposing

a duty of care. Alpha alleges that it submitted all its plans to Bilbro and received

“commentary, changes and revisions from Bilbro, FPBA and Sparling.” (ECF No. 45

- 12 - 16cv0003-WQH-NLS

Case 3:16-cv-00003-WQH-NLS Document 95 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 12 of

 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

¶ 19). Alpha alleges that Sparling “proposed several recommendations” and

“suggest[ed] mitigation techniques” to fix potential noise levels. Id. ¶ 23. Alpha

alleges that it “regularly received communications from Sparling . . . either directly

from Sparling . . . or as a forward by Bilbro.” Id. ¶ 21. Alpha alleges that “Bilbo [sic],

FPBA and Sparling provided Alpha with various suggestions . . . on how to reduce the

noise levels in the individual rooms.” Id. ¶ 27. Alpha alleges that it incurred additional 

costs implementing these suggestions and the “solutions presented by Bilbro, FPBA and

Sparling did not effectively reduce the noise level . . . .” Id. ¶ 28. Alpha alleges that

ultimately, Bilbro refused to pay Alpha under their contract and refused to compensate

Alpha for additional work done to try to resolve the noise issues. Although the

Complaint alleges that Sparling gave Alpha “suggestions,” there are no facts alleged to

support the inference that Alpha would rely on Sparling’s suggestions. Alpha’s scope

of work was to use “plans and specifications by FPBA.” Id. ¶ 14. Alpha has not

alleged sufficient facts to infer that the closeness of the connection between Sparling’s

conduct and the injury suffered to support a legal duty of care. 

The fifth factor, moral blame, has no application in this case because the

relationships involve arm’s length transaction and Alpha has not alleged any facts to

support a claim that Sparling acted in bad faith. 

In assessing the last factor, policy of preventing future harm, the California

Supreme Court has held that “[a]s a matter of economic and social policy, third parties

should be encouraged to rely on their own prudence, diligence, and contracting power.” 

Bily, 834 P.2d at 765. Alpha is a sophisticated actor and had a responsibility to protect

itself. There are no factual allegations to support an inference that Alpha was required

to rely on Sparling’s “suggestions” and “recommendations.” See ECF No. 45 ¶¶ 21, 23,

27. 

While it may have been foreseeable that Alpha, relying on Sparling’s

suggestions, may have suffered economic injury, “[t]he mere presence of a foreseeable

risk of injury to third persons” is not “sufficient, standing alone, to impose liability for

- 13 - 16cv0003-WQH-NLS

Case 3:16-cv-00003-WQH-NLS Document 95 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 13 of

 14
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

negligent conduct.” Bily, 834 P.2d 745, 762. Alpha has not alleged facts sufficient to

find that there was a special relationship between Alpha and Sparling. Sparling was

hired by FPBA as an acoustical consultant. Alpha has not alleged facts sufficient to

infer that Alpha was the intended beneficiary of the contract between FPBA and

Sparling or that Alpha had to implement Sparling’s suggestions. See Ratcliff, 106 Cal.

Rptr. 2d at 8 (“Courts sometimes impose a duty to prevent pure economic loss when

there is no privity of contract when the injured party is an intended beneficiary of a

contract between the defendant and another party.”). Alpha has not alleged sufficient

facts to establish that Sparling owed Alpha a legal duty of care. Sparling’s motion to

dismiss Alpha’s claim for negligence is granted.

V. Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed by Ferguson Paper

Baldwin Architects, Inc. (ECF No. 56) is denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed by Sparling, Inc.

(ECF No. 59) is granted. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request for oral argument filed by Ferguson

Pape Baldwin is denied as moot. (ECF No. 72).

DATED: August 26, 2016

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 14 - 16cv0003-WQH-NLS

Case 3:16-cv-00003-WQH-NLS Document 95 Filed 08/26/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 14 of

 14