“Civ. Code Sections 895-945.5 (commonly known as the Right to Repair Act; hereafter the Act) ... sets forth detailed statewide standards that the components of a dwelling must satisfy. It also establishes a prelitigation dispute resolution process that affords builders notice of alleged construction defects and the opportunity to cure such defects, while granting homeowners the right to sue for deficiencies even in the absence of property damage or personal injury.” McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 241, 247.
“Section 896, which codifies a lengthy set of standards for the construction of individual dwellings, begins with a preamble describing the intended effect of those standards. As relevant here, the preamble says: ‘In any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in, the residential construction, design, specifications, surveying, planning, supervision, testing, or observation of construction, a builder... shall, except as specifically set forth in this title, be liable for, and the claimant's claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of, the following standards, except as specifically set forth in this title. This title applies to original construction intended to be sold as an individual dwelling unit. As to condominium conversions, this title does not apply to or does not supersede any other statutory or common law.’” (McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 241 at 250 citing Sec. 896.)
Actionable defects under the Act include: · Water intrusion (Civ. Code § 896(a)) · Structural issues (foundations, etc.) (Civ. Code § 896(b)) · Soils-related issues (Civ. Code § 896(c)) · Fire protection issues (Civ. Code § 896(d)) · Plumbing and sewer issues (Civ. Code § 896(e)) · Electrical system issues (Civ. Code § 896(f)) · Other areas of construction (Civ. Code § 896(g) (Included are such things as stucco, hardscape, siding, HVAC equipment, noise transmissions, irrigation, posts and fences, paint and stains, roofing materials, landscaping, tile, dryer ducts, etc.)
Civil Code section 941(a) holds that no action seeking to recover damages covered by the Act may be brought more than ten years after substantial completion of an improvement, which is no later than the date of recordation of a valid notice of completion. (Civ. Code Sec. 941(a).)
“As with economic losses, the Act expressly includes property damages resulting from construction defects among the categories of damages recoverable under the Act. (McMillin Albany, 4 Cal.5th at 252 citing Sec. 944 [a homeowner may recover "the reasonable cost of repairing and rectifying any damages resulting from the failure of the home to meet the standards"]; see Sec. 896 [the Act applies to "recovery of damages arising out of, or related to" construction defects].) “This places claims involving property damages within the purview of section 943(a), which makes a claim under the Act the exclusive way to recover such damages. And unlike personal injury claims, negligence and strict liability claims for property damages are not among the few types of claims expressly excepted from section 943's exclusivity.” Id. at 253 citing Sec. 943 (a); see § 931 [noting claims for personal injury, but not property damage, fall outside the Act's coverage].)
., at p. 896. If the essential gravamen of the complaint is that "Defendant became intoxicated and thereafter drove a car while in that condition, despite his knowledge of the safety hazard he created thereby" then this is sufficient to allege punitive damages. (Id.)
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 830, 896; Karson Industries, Inc. v. Sup, Ct. (1969) 273 Cal.App.2d 7, 8-9 [defendant has the burden of “negating the propriety of venue as laid on all possible grounds.”].) A motion for change of venue must be supported by competent evidence, such as the complaint and declarations of the parties. (Mosby v. Superior Court (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 219, 227; see also Lieppman v. Lieber (1986) 180 Cal.
Los Angeles County, CA
(Taylor, 24 Cal.3d at 896.) The complaint therefore does not sufficiently allege a claim for punitive damages against Defendants. (See Dawes v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 82, 90 (“Allegations of intoxication, excessive speed, driving with defective equipment or the running of a stop signal, without more, do not state a cause of action for punitive damages.”).) The motion to strike is therefore granted.
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.) “As amended to include [despicable], the statute plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, ‘malice’ requires more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the plaintiffs’ interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.” (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725.) The statute’s reference to despicable conduct represents a “new substantive limitation on punitive damage awards.” (Ibid.)
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.) “As amended to include [despicable], the statute plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, ‘malice’ requires more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the plaintiffs’ interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.” (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725.) The statute’s reference to despicable conduct represents a “new substantive limitation on punitive damage awards.” (Ibid.)
Los Angeles County, CA
Rptr. 2d 878, 896 P.2d 171].) The City makes an impassioned plea that parties will be caught in a “‘Catch 22’ where any path to settlement enforcement potentially could be foreclosed to them.’” Given the instruction to litigants in the published cases on this topic, we are not persuaded by the City's argument. Mesa, Olive, and Hill can, for example, file a new action for breach of the settlement agreement. (See, e.g., Hagan Engineering, Inc. v. Mills (2003) 115 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1011 [9 Cal.
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.) “As amended to include [despicable], the statute plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, ‘malice’ requires more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the plaintiffs’ interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.” (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725.) The statute’s reference to despicable conduct represents a “new substantive limitation on punitive damage awards.” (Ibid.)
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.) “As amended to include [despicable], the statute plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, ‘malice’ requires more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the plaintiffs’ interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.” (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725.) The statute’s reference to despicable conduct represents a “new substantive limitation on punitive damage awards.” (Ibid.)
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
(See OB 8-9, citing AR 214-216, 1756-57, 1796-97, 895-896.) Petitioner fails to establish that the discipline for Charge 2 was discriminatory, retaliatory, or a violation of due process. Based on the foregoing, the weight of the evidence supports Commission’s findings for Charge 2. Charge 4 Commission upheld Charge 4 against Petitioner by a 3-2 vote.
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
Garamendi (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 896, 901.) “If a plaintiff succeeds in obtaining only partial relief, the plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees unless the plaintiff obtains results ‘that are so minimal or insignificant as to justify a finding that the plaintiff did not [in fact] prevail.’” (Sukumar v. City of San Diego (2017) 14 Cal.App.5th 451, 464.)
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.) “As amended to include [despicable], the statute plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, ‘malice’ requires more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the plaintiffs’ interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.” (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725.) The statute’s reference to despicable conduct represents a “new substantive limitation on punitive damage awards.” (Ibid.)
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.) “As amended to include [despicable], the statute plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, ‘malice’ requires more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the plaintiffs’ interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.” (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725.) The statute’s reference to despicable conduct represents a “new substantive limitation on punitive damage awards.” (Ibid.)
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.) “As amended to include [despicable], the statute plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, ‘malice’ requires more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the plaintiffs’ interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.” (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725.) The statute’s reference to despicable conduct represents a “new substantive limitation on punitive damage awards.” (Ibid.)
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiff also relies on In re: Malik J. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 896, 898. In that case, the juvenile court required the juvenile defendant to provide the passwords to his social media and computers as a term to parole. The court of appeals held this was overbroad and impermissible, as it is well known that persons create “a digital record of every aspect of their lives – from the mundane to the intimate.”
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Los Angeles County, CA
Gamson (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 873, 896. The doctrine of civil conspiracy requires “commission of an actual tort.” Applied Equipment Corporation v. Litton Saudi Arabia Limited (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 511. Defendants were not plaintiff’s landlords, so cannot be liable for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. Plaintiff argues demurring defendants conspired with defendant Jorquez to violate the covenant of quiet enjoyment, so they can be liable as co-conspirators.
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
(Id. at 896-897.) An action will lie against a mortician for tortious interference with the statutory right to dispose of a decedent's remains. (Id. at 890.) Here, Keystone picked up the Decedent’s remains from Sutter Hospital even though Plaintiff did not give her consent. Thereafter, Keystone refused to return the remains to Sutter when Plaintiff and her brother so requested. The 4AC alleges that Keystone’s employee said he would never turn them over to Plaintiff.
Robert S
Sonoma County, CA
Gamson (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 873, 896.) Some courts have held that the covenant of quiet enjoyment is not broken until there has been actual or constructive eviction. (Id. at 898.) However, other, subsequent, cases have held that the covenant may also be broken where the tenant’s use of the premises is disturbed but the plaintiff remains in possession. (Id.)
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.) “As amended to include [despicable], the statute plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, ‘malice’ requires more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the plaintiffs’ interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.” (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725.) The statute’s reference to despicable conduct represents a “new substantive limitation on punitive damage awards.” (Ibid.)
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.) “As amended to include [despicable], the statute plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, ‘malice’ requires more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the plaintiffs’ interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.” (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725.) The statute’s reference to despicable conduct represents a “new substantive limitation on punitive damage awards.” (Ibid.)
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.) “As amended to include [despicable], the statute plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, ‘malice’ requires more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the plaintiffs’ interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.” (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725.) The statute’s reference to despicable conduct represents a “new substantive limitation on punitive damage awards.” (Ibid.)
Los Angeles County, CA
Jacobs Facilities, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at 896. "[T]he reference to unlicensed performance of both 'acts' and 'contracts' [in Bus. & Prof. Code § 7031(a)] was intended to close a loophole, not to open one. Most reasonably read, this reference ensures that one may not avoid the all-or-nothing bar against recovery for unlicensed services simply because there is no formal contract.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
San Diego County, CA
Superior Court (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896.) “As amended to include [despicable], the statute plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, ‘malice’ requires more than a ‘willful and conscious’ disregard of the plaintiffs’ interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.” (College Hospital, Inc., supra, 8 Cal.4th at p. 725.) The statute’s reference to despicable conduct represents a “new substantive limitation on punitive damage awards.” (Ibid.)
Los Angeles County, CA
AR 896 (emphasis added). Mr. Fertig: “But for so long, you think, what – from the information that you have, do you think that’s enough to have my license, as the solid contractor that you just stated that it shows stability, that it shows somebody that has a good record, no complaints on his license, to put me on the line like this, without talking to me, without calling me?” AR 901 (emphasis added).
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
Jacobs Facilities, supra, 239 Cal.App.4th at 896. "[T]he reference to unlicensed performance of both 'acts' and 'contracts' [in Bus. & Prof. Code § 7031(a)] was intended to close a loophole, not to open one. Most reasonably read, this reference ensures that one may not avoid the all-or-nothing bar against recovery for unlicensed services simply because there is no formal contract.
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
San Diego County, CA
Id. at 895, 896. The "despicable conduct" standard is satisfied, and punitive damages are appropriate if Defendant's acts are reprehensible, fraudulent or in blatant violation of law or policy. American Airlines, Inc. v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton (2002) 96 Cal. App. 4th 1017, 1051. Causes of action for forcible entry and detainer, conversion and trespass can support an award of exemplary damages. Cyrus v. Haveson (1976) 65 Cal.
Real Property
other
San Diego County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
