What is the Right to Repair Act?

Useful Rulings on Construction Defect

Recent Rulings on Construction Defect

MIRNA VILLANUEVA, ET AL. VS LAUREN LEE

., 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.)

  • Hearing

SASHA MALBROUGH VS JOEL LOPEZ

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.

  • Hearing

BHARDWAJBHAI PATEL VS FRANCISCO MARTINEZ BALSECA

(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.

  • Hearing

TAMARA CHOLAKIAN VS STEPHEN SANTEN

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.)

  • Hearing

KIMBERLEY BERRUETE LOPEZ VS WESTERN MERCHANDISED EXPRESS, INC., ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

CARLOS TORRES ET AL VS ALVARADO LLC ET AL

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

DEBRA MCCOY, AN INDIVIDUAL VS LINDA MAE KUSHNER, AN INDIVIDUAL

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.)

  • Hearing

SHERYL BARNECK VS CITY OF LOS ANGELES

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.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CATHERINE BRUNI VS CITY OF ALHAMBRA

(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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BRIAN SANDERS VS TORRANCE POLICE DEPARTMENT

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.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ANTONIO ROBLES VS IRFAN HUSEIN

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.)

  • Hearing

SANDY MERCEDES CORTEZ VS DANIEL SCOTT GARDENSWARTZ

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.)

  • Hearing

STANLEY WAITE VS 99 CENTS ONLY STORES LLC, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

ERIK COVARRUBIAS VS ARBON EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

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.”

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

BRADFORD DOUGLASS VS BABAK EZHARI, ET AL.

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HOUSTON V. SUTTER WEST BAY HOSPITALS

(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.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Robert S

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

ANGELICA ARNADO, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS 901 SOUTH BROADWAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

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.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

MICHELLE DUBOIS VS L&S CONSTRUCTION, INC,, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

CHRIS HAINES VS BRE DDR BR EASTLAND CA, LLC

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.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MIREYA GARCIA VS MCKESSON CORPORATION, ET AL.

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.)

  • Hearing

GHAEEM VS NAMVAR

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JOSEPH LINARES VS RICHARD TORRES ET AL

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.)

  • Hearing

NIR FERTIG, ET AL. VS CONTRACTORS STATE LICENSE BOARD

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).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

GHAEEM VS NAMVAR

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

BAILEY MIRAMAR SELF STORAGE LP VS ROSHAN

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.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 54     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.