What is the Right to Repair Act?

Useful Rulings on Construction Defect

Recent Rulings on Construction Defect

CHRISTIAN CARRANZA VS DAVID PHILLIP MEYI, 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

    Jul 14, 2020

FOOTHILL-DE ANZA ASSOCIATION OF CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES (ACE) VS. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEM

Public Employees’ Retirement System (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 889, 896.) A demurrer does not admit the truth of argumentative allegations about legal construction, operation and the effect of statutory provisions. (Sierra Club v. Department of Parks and Recreation (2012) 202 Cal.App.4th 735, 743.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

RONALD GREEN VS LOS ANGELES WORLD AIRPORTS 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

    Jul 10, 2020

HANSON V. O’DWYER, ET AL.

(Id. at 895-896.) The Supreme Court held “that one who voluntarily commences, and thereafter continues, to consume alcoholic beverages to the point of intoxication, knowing from the outset that he must thereafter operate a motor vehicle demonstrates, […] ‘such a conscious and deliberate disregard of the interests of others that his conduct may be called willful or wanton.’” (Id. at 899–900, internal citation omitted.) Taylor, and a subsequent case interpreting it, Dawes v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

CITY OF SAN JOSE V. FALCOCCHIA

Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896), it is Cross-Defendants’ contention that with this claim, the Falcocchias are improperly attempting to collaterally attack the Board’s resolution concerning their culpability for failing to comply with the City’s municipal code for work done on their property.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

JEFF GRABOW VS NEELAKANTAN ANAND, MD, ET AL.

Mofid (1985) 39 Cal.3d 892, 896-897.) A plaintiff has reason to discover a cause of action when he or she has reason at least to suspect a factual basis for the elements of the cause of action. (Fox v. Ethicon Edo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 807.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

PETERS VS CITY OF BEAUMONT CALIFORNIA

Morhar (1977) 65 Cal.App.3d 896, 901.) Here, Plaintiff did not plead that. Oddly, he cites to Government Code §950.2 which bars a cause of action against a public employee for injuries resulting from the public employee’s scope of employment. This would support the notion that Plaintiff failure to name Kapanicas in the claim would bar any claims against him, unless he pleads the requirements of section 950.4.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

ADRIAN RISKIN VS HISTORIC CORE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

Garamendi, (“Belth”) (1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 896, 901-02 (plaintiff should not be denied attorney’s fees because resolution in plaintiff’s favor was reached by settlement or other means of early resolution). HCBID argues that Riskin is not entitled to an award of attorney fees because he is not a prevailing party under the CPRA. Opp. at 4-5.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Administrative

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JEFF GRABOW VS NEELAKANTAN ANAND, MD, ET AL.

Mofid (1985) 39 Cal.3d 892, 896-897.) A plaintiff has reason to discover a cause of action when he or she has reason at least to suspect a factual basis for the elements of the cause of action. (Fox v. Ethicon Edo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 807.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JOHNSON V. FACILITRON CORPORATION, ET AL.

Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1979) 24 Cal.3d 890, 895-896. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint contains no such allegations as against moving defendant FACILITRON, INC. (“FACILITRON”). Furthermore, as to the counts within the premises liability cause of action of willful failure to warn and dangerous condition of property, it is clear from the Plaintiffs’ allegations that the causes of their injuries are the acts of other participants and/or spectators, not conditions of the property.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

PATEL M.D. VS. JELD-WEN, INC.

The Right to Repair Act, including Civil Code § 896, does not apply by its terms to the construction of this property based on Plaintiffs’ allegations. Plaintiffs' first cause of action for negligence under Civil Code § 896 is sustained, without leave to amend, based on Civil Code § 938. B. Second Cause of Action (Negligence) 1.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

JAMES R MELVILLE ET AL VS OLYMPUS AMERICA INC ET AL

Rptr. 2d 896], "These rules are applied liberally in favor of discovery ( Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 785, 790), and (contrary to popular belief), fishing expeditions are permissible in some cases." (Id. at p. 1546.) However, early in the development of our discovery law our Supreme Court recognized the limits on such "fishing expeditions." In [*225] Greyhound Corp. v. Superior Court (1961) 56 Cal. 2d 355 [15 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

FELICIA JACINTA ANARO VS MASON-MCDUFFIE MORTGAGE CORPORATION AND U.S. BANK, N.A. ET AL.

Fidelity Consumer Discount Company (3d Cir.1990) 898 F.2d 896, 898 (Smith).) In order to further the purposes of TILA, Congress “delegated expansive authority to the Federal Reserve Board to elaborate and expand the legal framework governing commerce in credit.” (Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Milhollin (1980) 444 U.S. 555, 559–560, 100 S.Ct. 790, 794, 63 L.Ed.2d 22, 28.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

GARY MADDOCK ET AL VS CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES INSURANCE CO

Habig (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 896, 902.) Separate statements “permit trial courts to expeditiously review complex motions . . . for summary judgment to determine quickly and efficiently whether material facts are disputed.” (Id.) “[I]f either party fails to comply with the applicable separate statement requirement, that failure may in the court’s discretion constitute a sufficient ground to decide the motion adversely to the offending party.” (Parkview Villas Assn., Inc. v.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

FLAG & SYMBOL, LLC. VS VALUE PRICE, LLC.

Gamson (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 873, 896.) B. $2.5 Million in Damages for Breach of ISS Agreements According to the Complaint, Plaintiff received numerous demands in November 2019 from its international business partners in China and Israel demanding adequate assurances as to Plaintiff’s performance on the International Supplier Sales Agreements. (Compl. ¶ 23.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

A F VS LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL

Habig (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 896, 902.) Although the Court could properly conclude, based on the foregoing, that Plaintiff has failed to dispute certain portions of Defendant’s material facts, the Court declines to do so. Instead, because Plaintiff’s separate statement does offer evidence to dispute the facts to which Plaintiff objects, the Court deems the objections to constitute Plaintiff’s disputes as to the relevant material fact.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GOLDKORN V. PARADIGM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

Lukes (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1182–1183; In re Marriage of Assemi (1994) 7 Cal.4th 896, 905, 911 (same); 6 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 5th PWT § 126 (2020) (“CCP 664.6 provides an expeditious method for reducing a stipulated settlement to judgment").) The Court’s power has been described as “extremely limited” under the statute. (Hernandez v. Board of Education (2004) 126 Cal. App. 4th 1161, 1176.)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

JOHN KERWIN. AN INDIVIDUAL VS LAND OF THE FREE, L.P., A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, 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

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

JINN ONG VS GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Superior Court (1962) 58 Cal.2d 885, 896 [27 Cal. Rptr. 153, 377 P.2d 265] (Waters).) “The question whether a particular deponent is a ‘managing agent’ of one of the parties for purposes of pretrial discovery proceedings must of necessity be answered pragmatically” and is highly dependent on the particular factual circumstances before the court. (Id. at pp. 896–897; see Roehl v. Texas Co. (1930) 107 Cal.App. 691, 704 [291 P. 255].)

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

ZEINA PRIETO VS RAYMOND M TASH D D S ET AL

Supply Corp. (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 896, 900, the Court of Appeal addressed whether a settlement provision was enforceable where the agreement stipulated that defendant was to pay plaintiff $72,000 in twelve equal monthly installments with interest, unless defendant defaulted on payment in which case plaintiff would be entitled to $100,000.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

MICHAEL A NICHOLS ET AL VS GERAGOS & GERAGOS ET AL

County of Santa Barbara (9th Cir. 1990) 896 F.2d 1146, 1148.) “A police officer is qualifiedly immune from a suit for damages arising from an allegedly illegal arrest or search unless a reasonably well-trained officer in [his] position would have known that his affidavit failed to establish probable cause and that he should not have applied for the warrant.” (Ibid.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

RACHEL MONCADA VS ANGELS TRANS, 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

    Jun 30, 2020

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY V. HUBBELL INCORPORATED

County of Contra Costa (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 890, 896.) Second, in any event, the Government Code sections cited override the Health and Safety Code section. The court in Creason v. Department of Health Services (1998) 18 Cal.4th 623, 635, held that if “a specific immunity statute applies, it cannot be abrogated by a statute which simply imposes a general legal duty or liability.” In Caldwell v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

RAUL ENRIQUE GOMEZ VELZQUEZ VS GRICELA RAQUEL SAAVEDRA 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

    Jun 29, 2020

ANTHONY BLISS VS LEONORA FIHMAN, ET AL.

Mofid (1985) 39 Cal.3d 892, 896-897.) A plaintiff has reason to discover a cause of action when he or she has reason at least to suspect a factual basis for the elements of the cause of action. (Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 797, 807.) “In so using the term ‘elements,’ we do not take a hypertechnical approach to the application of the discovery rule.

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 47     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.