Home
Home
Embedded Files
11/15/2024
11/15/2024
This website contains complaint documents for Canary et al v Carriaga. It's a case for fraud related to the preparation of a Termite Inspection report.
This website contains complaint documents for Canary et al v Carriaga. It's a case for fraud related to the preparation of a Termite Inspection report.
Current Status: The complaint is in default. The Defendant has filed a motion to set aside default due to faulty substitute service but there's far far more to the story than just a complaint for fraud...
Current Status: The complaint is in default. The Defendant has filed a motion to set aside default due to faulty substitute service but there's far far more to the story than just a complaint for fraud...
Motion Documents
Motion Documents
Motion to Set Aside Default for Improper Substitute Service
Notice of Motion view
Points and Authorities view
Carriaga Declaration view
Chavez Declaration view
Proposed Order view
Opposition to Motion full PDF Submission 12/6/2024
Memo/Dec/Exhibit Covers gDoc
Request for Admissions** gDoc pdf as of 12/1/2024
Supporting Documents
view - Termite Inspection Report 20210205
view - Service Documentation - Shows substitute service on Nancy Barrs at Mimosa path on 4/5 and mailer on 4/12
view - Email with Tom Ineichen 20240315 - 20240523 1) Identifies Carriaga as employee not sub 2) confirms Mimosa Path corp address 3) confirms 5/1 meeting w Carriaga and Wheeler at Mimosa path transpired 4) confirms failure to note 2nd floor attic inspection as a violation, 5) other...
view - Email with Sayler Legal 5/15/2024 shows Carriaga had knowledge of service on 5/14/2024 (his answer was due by 5/22/2024
view - Email - Carriaga to Canary - "I will be countersuing you" shows Carriaga uses "wheeltertermite2@gmail.com" for email & he got pre-filing notice
view - Inspection Closure Letter** shows SPCB sent certified mail for Carriaga to Mimosa Path for official business
view - CA 8516
view - CA 8641
** - Item 6 - Closure Letter - We are issuing discovery for the motion hearing because we have irrefutable evidence that contradicts Carriaga's declaration he was a subcontractor, from the State of CA's perspective. We also have irrefutable evidence he was at the office / place of service 3 weeks after service and 3 weeks prior to an answer due. We also have irrefutable evidence the call he made to Sayler Legal was May 14, 2024, not in June as he stated in his declaration. Alex Carriage was properly served as an employee at Wheeler Termite at their head quarters on April 5, 2024 and he was at the service location on May 1, 2024, if not prior.
First the "Fishy" - then the Screenshots from Mr. Fishy that show Carriaga was an 'Employee' contrary to his declaration to courts and those which show he was at his corporate HQ and the place of his service WEEKs before his legal response was due. It also shows Mr. Fishy got him to admit he was never in the 2nd floor attic -- and after all that, then we'll get back to "Mr. Fishy" for sure...
First the "Fishy" - then the Screenshots from Mr. Fishy that show Carriaga was an 'Employee' contrary to his declaration to courts and those which show he was at his corporate HQ and the place of his service WEEKs before his legal response was due. It also shows Mr. Fishy got him to admit he was never in the 2nd floor attic -- and after all that, then we'll get back to "Mr. Fishy" for sure...
An inspection into this situation was performed by Tom Ineichen, a 30+ year CA Investigator.
Ineichen's closure letter shows he issued no sanctions for 5+ gross violations of the structural pest control act and behavior most will view as 22k in woefully egregious and fraudulent work.
After his bizarre insepction closure letter was issued, Ineichen was asked for the inspection notes which he created when he inspected the property -- where he had noted the improper foundation sketch and omitted structural defects and other relevant omissions found in the 2nd floor attic and crawl space -- Ineichen stated all his documents were 1) confidential and 2) not available to the public via subpoena. << ????? wtf ???
If that sounds "fishy" for a CA Consumer Protection Agency investigator, you are starting to find your way to the head of a larger trail of deceit with far greater clarity now.
Below are the details related to Carriaga.
Below those the focus shifts to the CA State Investigator. What exactly is going on here???
Tom Ineichen - Investigator and President of the California Association of Regulatory Investigators and Inspectors.
https://cslea.com/profile/tom-ineichen-carii/
Our experience supports hers whole heartedly. Most can't fathom what the Structural Pest Control Board people tried NOT to do before I got them to properly "start" an investigation. Then, once started it was ugly. Down right ugly...
Thus, this site became as much or more about them than Carriaga, for sure....
Before this read is over, you are going to be asking "who the f--k is Tom Ineichen , wtf is the CSLEA, and who's driving a ship where oversight of Structural Pest Control Inspctors is managed by the same peopel referred to as "toaster cops" -- those that save us from harmful tiny appliances most thought were useful for browning bread...
Carriaga is an "employee" of Wheelter Termite, not a sub-contractor, per SPCB Investigator, with absolute clarity, and information showing he had a dialogue with Carriaga about this ....
Carriaga is an "employee" of Wheelter Termite, not a sub-contractor, per SPCB Investigator, with absolute clarity, and information showing he had a dialogue with Carriaga about this ....
The left is a screengrab of Alex Carriaga's Declaration to the court to try to set aside default.
While Carriaga and Wheeler Termite might view their Tax Accounting as if Carriaga is a subcontractor, it's clear the SPCB treats his employment as that of an employee AND he knew that from the meeting with the Investigator Ineichen on 5/1/2024, as introduced above and detailed below
That makes his declaration an act of Perjury, when compared to the dialogue we know he had with Ineichen....
Carraiga was at 9934 Mimosa Path on 5/1/2024, 3 weeks after service and 3 weeks prior to an answer was due.
Carraiga was at 9934 Mimosa Path on 5/1/2024, 3 weeks after service and 3 weeks prior to an answer was due.
For us to believe Carriaga, we'd have to believe that the responsible party for Wheeler Termite, Nancy Barrs did NOT tell Carriaga about his lawsuit nor provide him a copy of the documents on or before 5/1/2024.
Yet, we know Barrs was telling Carriaga about the documents because Carriaga told us that via email...
Perjury / Perjury by omission / attempt to mislead the court, when compared to the email dialogue with the inspector and the meeting he had at 9934 Mimosa path on 5/1/2024.
Carraiga called Sayler Legal on May 14, 2024 a week before an answer was due.. Carriage did NOT call them in June as declared in his declaration...
Carraiga called Sayler Legal on May 14, 2024 a week before an answer was due.. Carriage did NOT call them in June as declared in his declaration...
Oh yikes. yiKeS, yikEs, yIkes...
That wasn't june and it wasn''t close to June. That was May 14th...
and... well... yeah....
Perjury / attempt to mislead the court, when compared to the email dialogue with Sayler Legal that documented his call on May 14, 2024, not June as he declared.
In Carriaga's Declaration, he points out the Strutural Pest Control Inspector concluded there was "insufficient evidence" to support a specific violation. While that is a true statement, what is concerning is what the Inspector admitted to finding -- and how he then ended up NOT issuing a Violation letter and sanctions...
In Carriaga's Declaration, he points out the Strutural Pest Control Inspector concluded there was "insufficient evidence" to support a specific violation. While that is a true statement, what is concerning is what the Inspector admitted to finding -- and how he then ended up NOT issuing a Violation letter and sanctions...
from Carriaga,
"On July 17, 2024 the State of California Structural Pest Control Board informed Plaintiffs that there was insufficient evidence to support a specific violation".
While that is true -- what is concerning is WHY the inspector issued that letter at all, as opposed to the one with Violations that was in fact due...
From the SPCB Inspector,
"The first is in relation to your comments about the (2nd story) attic... Mr. Carriaga does not deny that he did not enter the second story attic space.... Since his report does not identify that space as "inaccessible", it would still be a violation to not inspect it and not list it as inaccessible, either way." (see email below...)
Yet no sanctions were levied by State Inspector Tom Ineichen??
As for the evidence of the existance of the attic access and proof we didn't cut in the access hole,. I'm glad you asked because this is where it gets worse for Carriaga and his testimony...
The Seller's Home Inspector did an inspection on 1/28/2021, which was about a week before Carriaga did his insepction on 2/5/2021. The Seller's Home Inspection report showed no photos of the 2nd floor attic access. In some areas of that report it suggested the entire attic had been inspeceted. In one tiny part it talked about a home modification requirement for an inspection but it was very confusing. As it turned out, none of the facts or represenations about 2nd floor attic access in that report were sincere.
In Discovery with the Home Inspector, we obtained 1) photos of the access showing it was impossible for them or Carriage to miss and 2) proof they took the access panel off and photographed the 2nd floor attic, saw the damage and didn't report it . (and remember -- it was the the seller's agent, Kent Weinstein who ordered and participated at the Home Inspections on 1/28/2021, and it was Weinstein agaain who hired and paid Carriage, the termite inspector on 2/5/2021 -- at which point in time Weinstein knew what the inspectors had found during their inspection but failed to document, week prior.) Do you see the collusion yet?
Photo of Access panel - DSCF8765 / VIE000145 - Vierra Photos not included in report
In Discovery, the Seller’s Pre Sale Inspector was forced to provide all photos taken at the inspection. This photo was obtained in discovery. It was not included in the Seller’s pre-sale inspectors report.
The photo was taken on 1/28/2021 a week prior to Carriaga's Inspection when the home was under the control of the Seller's Agent. It's impossible for Carriage to have missed seeing this access and it's plenty large enough to have taken it off and looked inside. For an average build person it was also large enough for entry.
Photos of 2nd floor Attic Damge - taken after removing attic access cover
In Discovery, the Seller’s Pre Sale Inspector was forced to provide all photos taken at the inspection and he provided two photos showing he had seen the damage and not reported on it. (DSCF8811 / VIE000191, DSCF8812 / VIE 000192)
In his Declaration to the Investigator, Carriaga had sought to take advantage of the omission of attic access photos in the pre-sale home inspection report and he then sought to take advantage of a comment in the Buyers Home Inspection report, that was seemingly shared with him by the CA State Inspector, that suggested a cover was missing, when in fact the cover was sitting inside the attic, because it had been removed during an inspection days prior and not reinstalled prior to that home inspection...
but wait, there's a lot more fishyness yet to come related to that CA state inspector ...
From Insepctor Tom Ineichen May 30, 2024, 5:18Pm
Well, that seemed reasonable, until he then sent this ????..
At the time that was sent Insector Ineichen knew...
2nd Floor attic - Carriaga had not bee in the 2nd floor attic and he had failed to note it. He had personally identified issues needing to be called out in there during his site visit
Crawl Space - Carriaga either was in the crawl space and failed to note a $5k structural defect OR he didn't go in there either. Ineichen had personally identifed the structural defect and other items \
Fascia - Carriage had clearly been witness to professional concealment of dryrot and pest damage and he failed to note the concealment on his report.
"Complete Report" - Carriaga had marked the report as a "complete report" when the omissions should have resulted in a partial report notice.
"Foundation Sketch" - Carraiga had failed to note the crawl space at all on the foundation sketch, a violation of statute.
"Incomplete header boxes" - Carriaga left the "party of interest" and "report sent to" boxes blank, a violation of statute.
"Work Authorization Form" - Carriage had not provided quotes for damages to provide scope to his report. According to Ineichen, this is not a violation of statute, but in the context of the purpose of such a report, which is consumer protection, it seems a gross oversight, especially given the report was marked as a "complete report".
So what is actually going on here? How can all that stuff result in "insufficient evidence" for fraud, gross negligence or misrepresenation"? And what about that statute that requires a "bonafide inspection"? That's a great way to sum up this report, yet Ineichen didn't use that either? Well we may never know, because according to Ineichen the California Structural Pest Control Board, a Bureau in the Department of Consumer Affairs, is so powerful, they need not reveal anything to anyone, even via subpoeana. Believe it or not...
Who is inspector Tom Ineichen?
What is the CSLEA?
Does anyone regulate the CSLEA or Ineichen?
Are you too feeling a bit "queezy" about all of this about now?
For what it's worth, we can show other cmoplaints about the SPCB and investagaations that turned out comparable to this going back years.
Ineichen has been involved as ain investigator for the state for decades.
With this level of consumer protection, who needs taxes or a government at all...
Under Tom inichen's reign of "Termite Terror"...
Under Tom inichen's reign of "Termite Terror"...
To be continued... (12/4/2024)
Page updated
Report abuse