“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].)
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.)
Jul 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Jul 10, 2020
Sacramento 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.)
Jul 10, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
(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.
Jul 09, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
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.
Jul 09, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
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.)
Jul 09, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jul 09, 2020
Riverside County, CA
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.
Jul 09, 2020
Administrative
Writ
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Jul 09, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jul 09, 2020
Solano County, CA
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.
Jul 08, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
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.
Jul 08, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Jul 08, 2020
George J. Abdallah
San Joaquin County, CA
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.
Jul 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Jul 06, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jul 06, 2020
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Jul 02, 2020
Orange 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.)
Jul 01, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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].)
Jul 01, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jul 01, 2020
Employment
Wrongful Term
Los Angeles County, CA
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.)
Jun 30, 2020
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.)
Jun 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jun 29, 2020
Orange 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.)
Jun 29, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
Jun 29, 2020
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
Los Angeles County, CA
Please wait a moment while we gather your results.
