A Chula Vista construction company that pledged to disrupt the local market for accessory dwelling units — the granny flats that so many homeowners want to expand their living space, and so many elected leaders have pushed to help solve a critical housing shortage — is being broadly accused of fraud.
Instead of building the backyard homes known as ADUs, a new lawsuit says Multitaskr Construction collected at least $10 million from San Diego County homeowners and then did little more than plant portable toilets on the property.
RELATED: San Jose makes it legal to sell your ADU separately from your home
More than 60 property owners stretching across the region have joined the fraud and breach-of-contract case against Multitaskr, accusing company executives of using high-pressure sales tactics and demanding payment upfront but failing to see the jobs through.
“Even though the plaintiff entered into the written contract and verbal agreement with Multitaskr in December of 2022, no work has been performed by Multitaskr,” says the lawsuit, which was filed in San Diego Superior Court in October.
The legal complaint also accuses the company of colluding with various lenders to approve loans for the work before the jobs were completed — a practice that would violate state law.
“Despite not performing any work, each of the lenders have improperly disbursed the entirety of the loan amounts directly to Multitaskr without performing necessary and required due diligence,” the lawsuit says.
The Multitaskr principals, who also have been named in more than a dozen other lawsuits in recent months, could not be reached for comment.
No one answered the company phone line, and emails to the firm bounced back. According to the San Diego Superior Court docket, no attorney is listed in court records as currently representing Multitaskr.
The alleged scheme is so brazen that both state and federal agents have begun reviewing the allegations against Multitaskr principals and participating lenders to determine whether criminal charges should be filed, plaintiffs told The San Diego Union-Tribune.
Neither the U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Diego nor the Contractors State License Board would discuss their investigations.
Federal officials declined to comment, and state regulators issued a statement noting the company’s license was suspended and saying the case remains active.
RELATED: Not (officially) in my backyard: Illegal California ADUs outpacing permitted ones
“Additional investigation is ongoing and CSLB cannot comment further at this time,” state licensing board spokesperson Katherine White said by email.
Records available online show that state regulators suspended the general building license issued to Multitaskr Construction in March 2021.
Regulators also are investigating no fewer than 13 complaints filed with the licensing board since October, most accusing Multitaskr of abandoning work without a legal excuse, exceeding the limit for down payments and receiving or requesting more money than its work merited.
The complaints have been combined into a single investigation, online records show. Two already have been referred for unspecified legal action.
San Diego Superior Court records also show Multitaskr was sued Dec. 16 by American Contractors Indemnity Co., the builder’s bonding agent.
The company also has been named in eight other breach-of-contract lawsuits, one collections complaint, a business tort case, a small-claims action and two employment-related lawsuits, according to court records.
All but two of those complaints were filed this year, and no defense attorneys are identified in court documents. The San Diego lawyer who represented Multitaskr in lawsuits brought against the firm in 2020 and 2022 did not respond to a request for comment.
Local government officials have consistently promoted ADUs as a means of helping address the region’s housing crisis. But they also warn consumers to do their homework before embarking on a project, including researching their contractor.
Multitaskr Construction was incorporated in 2020, with Jose Frausto and Ismael Del Pino reported as chief executive officer and chief financial officer, respectively, according to the California Secretary of State’s Office.
The company promotes its design and construction services online to potential customers, boasting of work in San Diego and Tijuana, as well as in the city of Monterrey, Mexico, and Ecuador.
“Multitaskr – ADU Financing and Construction,” the company Instagram page states. “We make ADUs easy for you.”
But online reviews show many customers did not have their projects go as planned.
“There is no project. They have our money,” one customer wrote. “Multitaskr not only broke promises but also put many of us in a difficult financial position,” another posted.
The Better Business Bureau issued an alert in September, warning consumers about the firm’s practices. The business was slapped with an F grade after failing to respond to questions about the spate of complaints from San Diego County homeowners.
Frausto also created affiliated companies that deliver finance, solar installation, asset management, property inspection, insurance and other services, state records show. Several of the companies were terminated earlier this year.
Joshua Cawthorn in his backyard where a pair of ADUs are supposed to be built on Dec. 20, 2024 in Hillcrest. (Ariana Drehsler / For The San Diego Union-Tribune)
Related Articles
Bay Area home sales are up 14% from last year, as once-reluctant buyers return to market
New law could help California renters facing eviction stay in their homes
Elias: The lesson of ultra-high coastal real estate prices — look inland
Photos: ‘Dance Moms’ alum JoJo Siwa’s California mansion lists for $4 million
South Bay tech data site is bought by California real estate firm
According to the lawsuit, Multitaskr reached agreements to design and build ADUs on scores of properties around San Diego County.
The company also worked with a handful of lenders to provide homeowners loans to pay for the construction. Most of the loans were limited to $100,000, although many customers took out more than one, the lawsuit alleges.
The plaintiffs say that Multitaskr required its customers to use its in-house financing entity, then sent the personal and financial data to an unknown number of lenders. They say they were immediately approved for loans, with interest deferred for 12 months.
“Multitaskr and the Multitaskr employees each made promises to plaintiffs that the construction services would be completed during the grace period of the loans and then plaintiffs would be able to rent out or use the units prior to the expiration of the grace period,” the complaint says.
“For each loan, the money was sent directly from the lender to Multitaskr and plaintiff never directly received the funds,” it adds.
Plaintiffs said the 12-month grace period began as soon as loan disbursements were made — sometimes as little as $1 paid by lenders to Multitaskr.
None of the projects was completed within the first year, and all of them remain unfinished, the lawsuit says.
Many borrowers paid more than they needed to because they were obliged to pay the full loan amount rather than the actual construction costs, according to the claim. A few of the plaintiffs said some of their loans were forgiven or refunded in recent months.
“This sales model is highly profitable but also misleading to the consumer,” the lawsuit says.
Hillcrest homeowner Joshua Cawthorn is one of the more than 60 plaintiffs in the biggest case against Multitaskr.
Cawthorn said he wanted to build a pair of two-story ADUs in his backyard to help ease the housing crisis, but after nearly two years and taking on six different loans, all he had gotten were the work permits issued by the city. His credit score took a serious hit, too.
“What cost me more than my credit was actually my time,” he said. “If it wasn’t for Multitaskr and what happened, I would currently have ADUs at my house. Instead, I’m looking at a yearslong process restoring my credit so I can build ADUs on my property in the future.”
The credit-repair work has already begun, Cawthorn said. Two of his loans already have been refunded or cancelled.
The lawsuit was assigned to Judge Marcella O. McLaughlin. The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. A case-management conference has been scheduled for May 30, 2025.
