South Bay Design Center

On May 7, 2023, I entered into a Kitchen Retainer Agreement with South Bay Design Center, Inc. (“SBDC”) for kitchen design, space planning, and cabinetry. At that time, I paid a $7,000.00 retainer to Sales Representative and Designer, Ms. Polly Nunez. She assured me that I was receiving SBDC’s “best promotion ever” — 30% off MSRP — emphasizing that the owner had never offered such a discount before.

When I inquired about the approximate total cost, Ms. Nunez stated that pricing depended on the design and size of the project, but assured me that my retainer could be applied toward any cabinet purchase. She failed to disclose two critical facts:
1. The cabinetry had to be chosen from a limited selection of five brands that SBDC represents.
2. SBDC is a third-party dealer and does not manufacture its own cabinets.

Additionally, Ms. Nunez omitted that the quoted pricing did not include installation. Instead, she described SBDC’s services as fully customizing and building a “dream kitchen” to the exact specifications of my appliances, implying a complete, turnkey service.

Design & Brand Limitation
After 5–6 weeks of design work, I was informed for the first time that I must select one of SBDC’s five represented brands. The designer sent me a spreadsheet comparing prices, all of which were significantly higher than I expected. When I questioned the costs and materials, I was told I was already being offered the “lower” pricing option, and that other brands were “high-end” and even more expensive, though of the same quality. I was also pressured to decide quickly due to manufacturing lead times of 2–3 months.

At no point during the design process was I asked about my budget. With limited industry knowledge, I relied entirely on my sales representative’s expertise and representations. Under pressure not to lose my $7,000 retainer or waste further time, I chose the “Belmont” brand — presented as the most cost-effective option without compromising quality.

Material Representation
On or about June 24, 2023, during the order finalization, Ms. Nunez explained that there was a $20,000 cost difference between “plywood” and “furniture board” cabinet boxes. When I asked about quality differences, she assured me there was no difference in strength or longevity, stating that “furniture board is very strong — it could take bullets.” The showroom had no physical samples of furniture board, only MDF doors and finished installations. Relying on her statements, I approved the order.

I then received an invoice for $70,000.00 for the cabinets, with 50% due before production. It was at this point — after months of engagement — that I was first informed installation was not included.

Delivery & Quality Issues
On August 30, 2023, the cabinets were delivered. Upon inspection, I observed:
• Improper handling during delivery
• Physical damage to multiple units
• Poor assembly and inferior craftsmanship inconsistent with the showroom display and prior representations

I immediately notified SBDC via text, email, and phone. I was assured the damaged items would be replaced. However, each of the three subsequent replacement shipments was delivered in equally poor condition, with the same defects and low-quality workmanship.

Despite repeated requests for resolution — including mediation efforts — SBDC and Belmont Cabinet Co. refused to provide a refund, citing the order as “custom.” Instead, they insisted the warranty would cover additional replacements, which still arrived defective.

Financial & Practical Impact
SBDC’s misrepresentations and failure to deliver quality cabinets have left me without a functional kitchen or bathroom for over two years. I have incurred additional expenses to hire contractors to remove and store the defective cabinetry, which is currently in my basement. I am now incurring thousands of dollars of attorney fees for legal mediation.

I was subjected to bait-and-switch sales tactics, material misrepresentation, and a breach of good faith in executing this agreement. SBDC has failed to deliver the quality product promised, refused reasonable refunds, and caused ongoing financial loss and hardship.