Date: 11-24-2014

Case Style: Pacific Coast Supply, LLC v. Will pro Roofing Construction, LLC and Joe Gregg Willcut

Case Number: CJ-2014-1508

Judge: Mary Fitzgerald

Court: District Court, Tulsa County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Dave Looby

Defendant's Attorney: Tearsa Olson

Description: COMES NOW the Plaintiff, PACIFIC COAST SUPPLY, LLC, a Nevada limited liability
company, by and through its attorneys of record, RUBENSTEIN & PITTS, PLLC, and for its
causes of action against the Defendants WILL PRO ROOFING & CONSTRUCTION, LLC, an Oklahoma limited liability company, and JOEL GREGG WILLCUT, individually, alleges and states:
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1 Plaintiff, Pacific Coast Supply, LLC (“PCS”), is a limited liability company
organized and existing in good standing pursuant to the laws of the state of Nevada and is authorized to conduct business in the state of Oklahoma Plaintiff conducts business and maintains an office in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma
2. Defendant, Will Pro Roofing & Construction, LLC (“Will Pro”), is an Oklahoma limited liability company with a principal place of business in Bixby, Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Will Pro also conducts business and maintains an office in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
3. Defendant, Joel Gregg Wilicut (“Wilicut”), is an individual residing in Tulsa County, Oklahoma.
4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and venue is proper pursuant to 12 O.S. § 142.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND/GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5. PCS incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-4 as though fully stated herein.
6. On or about September 24, 2013, PCS entered into a written contract with Will Pro pursuant to which PCS would furnish building materials and goods to Will Pro on an open account in exchange for payment. A true and correct copy of the written contract is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and by reference made a part hereof.
7. As part of the written contract, Willcut executed a continuing personal guarantee on the open account in which he guaranteed payment by Will Pro. See Exhibit 1 attached hereto.
8. Under the open account, PCS has remitted invoices to Will Pro for building materials furnished in the total sum of $41,020.80. True and correct copies of invoices submitted to Will Pro are attached as Exhibit 2 and by reference made a part hereof.
9. Will Pro has only made two (2) payments, in the total amount of $2,812.31, to PCS on those invoices. As a result, Will Pro is presently indebted to PCS in the sum of $38,208.49 for building materials furnished under the open account. See Exhibit 3, PSC Aging Report attached hereto.
10. Although Will Pro has been billed by PCS and demand has been made upon it, Will Pro has refused to pay for the charges incurred with PCS.
11. As of April 10, 2014, Will Pro and Wilicut are indebted to PCS in the amount of
$38,208.49, together with a reasonable attorneys’ fee, expenses, costs and statutory interest accruing on all unpaid indebtedness.
COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT (WILL PRO)
12. PCS incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-11 as though fully stated herein.
13. PCS and Will Pro entered into a valid contract for credit on an open account and PCS seeks redress for breach of that contract.
14. Will Pro agreed to remit payment to PCS for building materials and goods shipped to Will Pro on the open account. Will Pro has not complied with the terms of the contract since it has failed to remit full payment to PCS for its building materials.
15. PCS demanded that WiliPro honor the terms of the contract, but Will Pro refused to fulfill its contractual duties and has not remitted full payment of the monies that are owed to PCS.
16. As a result of Will Pro’s breach, the amount of $38,208.49 is due from Will Pro to PCS together with a reasonable attorneys’ fee pursuant to 12 O.S. § 936, expenses, costs and statutory interest on all unpaid indebtedness.
WHEREFORE, PCS prays for judgment against Will Pro for the principal sum of $38,208.49, together with a reasonable attorneys’ fee, expenses, costs and statutory interest accruing until the indebtedness is paid, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
COUNT II: SUIT ON PERSONAL GUARANTEE (WILLCUT)
17. PCS incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-16 as though fully stated herein.
18. On or about September 24, 2013, Willcut executed a continuing personal guarantee on the open account in which he guaranteed payment by Will Pro.
19. As a result, Willcut is personally indebted to PCS in the sum of $38,208.49.
WHEREFORE, PCS prays for judgment against Willcut for the :principal sum of $38,208.49, together with a reasonable attorneys’ fee, expenses, costs and statutory interest accruing
until the indebtedness is paid, and such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
proper.

Defendant's Answer
COMES NOW, Defendants, Will Pro Roofing & Construction LLC and Joel Gregg Wilicut, individually (hereinafter “Defendants”), by and through its counsel, and for its Answer to Plaintiff’s Petition alleges and states as follows:
I. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to admit or deny Plaintiff’s allegations stated in paragraph one (1).
2. Defendants admit in part and deny in part Plaintiff’s allegations stated in paragraph two (2), denying the allegations insomuch that Defendants do not have an office in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, Oklahoma.
3 Defendants admit Plaintiff’s allegations stated in paragraph three (3)
4 Defendants admit Plaintiff’s allegations stated in paragraph four (4)
5 The statements contained in paragraph five (5) require no admission or denial
6. Defendants admit Plaintiff’s allegations stated in paragraph six (6).
7. Defendants neither admit nor deny the allegations stated in paragraph seven (7) as the terms of the document speak for themselves.
8. Defendants admit Plaintiffs allegations stated in paragraph eight (8).
9. Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations stated in paragraph nine (9), more particularly the total amount paid is inaccurate as Defendants have more than two (2) payments to Plaintiff, totaling more than $2,812.31.
10. Defendants deny Plaintiff’s allegations stated in paragraph ten (10) insomuch that Defendants have continued to make payments to Plaintiff and have actively maintained communication with Plaintiff, in no way refusing to pay for any charges incurred with Pcs.
11. Defendants deny Plaintiffs allegations stated in paragraph eleven (11).
12. The statements contained in paragraph twelve (12) require no admission or denial.
13. Defendants deny Plaintiffs allegations stated in paragraph thirteen (13).
14. Defendants deny Plaintiffs allegations stated in paragraph fourteen (14).
15. Defendants deny Plaintiffs allegations stated in paragraph fifteen (15).
16. Defendants deny Plaintiffs allegations stated in paragraph sixteen (16).
17. The statements contained in paragraph seventeen (17) require no admission or denial.
18. Defendants admit Plaintiffs allegations stated in paragraph eighteen (18).
19. Defendants deny Plaintiffs allegations stated in paragraph nineteen (19).
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
For Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses, Defendants incorporates paragraphs one (1) through nineteen (19) and alleges the following:
A. Plaintiff engaged in fraud with the intention to deceive Defendants in order to influence Defendants to enter into a contract with Plaintiff and that Defendants relied on the fraudulent statement.
B. Plaintiff’s claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
C. Plaintiff’s Petition contains allegations that do not have evidentiary support in violation of Oklahoma Rules of Civil Procedure,
D. Lack of personal jurisdiction,
E. Forum non conveniens,
F. Estoppel,
G. Waiver,
H. Laches,
I. Release/Waiver,
J. All other affirmative defenses as are developed or discovered during this matter which Defendant reserves the right to assert.
WHEREFORE, premises considered Defendants request that this Court order an entry of judgment as follows:
1. Dismissing all Counts of Plaintiff’s Petition,
2. Award Defendants such other further relief to which Defendants may be entitled.

Outcome: Settled and dismissed with prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: