What are Latent Defects?

Useful Resources for Latent Defects

Documents on Latent Defects

276-300 of 10000 results

Motion to Strike - 11/18/16; Re-Notice 11/29/16 Defendant, HYUNDAI MOTOR...

Superior Court of California County of Kern Bakersfield Department 17 Hearing Date: 01/05/2017 Time: 8:30 AM - 12:00 PM SARA CASTANEDA VS HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATI...

1ST AMENDED COMPLAINT FILED BY PLAINTIFF GILES, ANTHONY AS TRUSTEE OF TH...

IOUT A SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Document Scanning Lead Sheet Sep-20-2013 02:29 pm Case Number: CGC-13-533039 Filing Date: Sep-20-2013 02:28 pm Filed by: CAROL BALISTRERI Juke Box: 001 Image: 04209674 COMPLAINT ANTHONY GILES VS. HEMPHILL CONSTRUCTION CO, INC, A CALIFORNIA et al 001004209674 Instructions: Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.ANTHONY D. GILES (BAR NO. 178876) LAW OFFICE OF ANTHONY GILES 580 California Street,...

Request By Annette Tuso Elissagaray That The Court Take Judicial Notice ...

rw N oD wm NI Aw ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JAMES L, PAGANO, ESQ. (Cal. State Bar No. 098185) IAN A. KASS, ESQ. (Cal. State Bar No. 184480) PAGANO & KASS, APC 96 North Third Street, Suite 525 San Jose, California 95112 Telephone: (408) 999-5678 Facsimile: (408) 999-5684 * FILED 207 WU 29° PH 2: 1.3 be IRQ, CLERK Attorneys for Plaintiffs, ROGER ELISSGARAY, Deceased, and ANNETTE TUSO ELISSAGARAY, in her individual capacity and as Applicant as Succ...

Answer filed.

335 Anton Boutevard, Tenth Floor Costa Mesa, Califomin 92626-1977 - wn 10 i 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 FIRST AFFIk IVE DEFENSE ‘Failure To State A = Of Action) The Complau ‘ each count thereo. to state facts suffic > constitute a cause ¢ on upon which relic be granted against aswering Defendan ECO TFIRMATIVE DEt e (Liability thers/Contribution, 3. This % ering Defendant ali hat, if it is determ: »at Plaintiff sustain damages as allegec % »e Complaint, that . “e was ...

Answer filed.

10 11 12 13 26 17 28 2c 26 25 26 7 ce e COMPL- ability, di rele: ana defendant Sectic Sections 5 vlaint, Se Part 2, Title 2, Chay. »vlaint, and each alle. nse of action thereot, rot state facts suffict. a cause of action 4, this answering defen AS A FIRST, S >ATE AND AFFIRi. VE DEFENSE TO . *OMPLAINT, AND EACH ALLE CAUSE OF ACTIC 3s defendant alleges t ntiff's 4 SECOND, SEPAi AND AFFIRMATi “FENSE TO THE AND EACH ALLE CAUSE OF ACTIC + defendant alleges complain...

Answer filed.

10 il 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 damages against th. ss-Defendant by vir. ‘the Cross-Complaii. Cross-Defendant p. said recovery be div ed by reason of the sence of the Cross-C ‘inant in proportion to seree of fault attribu. 9 the Cross-Compla. Si 'DAFFIRMATIVE ~°ENSE CON *UTORY NEGLIG. 5, AS A& ND, FURTHER, SL \TE AND AFFIRM, "E DEFENSE to the & Complaint, and to a of action therec Cross-Defendant ai. that Cross-Complai. negligent with res, %e the matters allegec e Cross...

Answer (Cross-Complaint) filed.

sys RSWER OF MEL Lt SWASONRY,INC.TO< COMPLAINTOFING dba OLDP10 11 14 is 16 17 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 was negligent with . ‘t to the matters all n the Cross-Compl: od that said neglige: sibuted to and pre ely caused the al injuries and dama_ ‘f any, to Cross- Co rant. 2. > AFFIRMATIVE 1 NSE FAILURE TATE A CAUSE G TION ASA, >, FURTHER, SEF. TE AND AFFIRMr. > DEFENSE to the - Complaint, and to & a's of action thereo. Cross-Defendant ali hat Cross-Complain a“ “ailed to state facts s. gy ynt...

Answer filed.

22 23 24 25 28 LAW OFFICE OF 7K F. GOUDY | of action, this « ‘ing defendant allege the Complaint and « suse of action thereii. fails to state facts s. nt to constitute a cac action against this a: ng defendant. SECOND AFFIRs VE DEFENSE ond for a Second Se, Affirmative Defense » Complaint, and eac nrate cause of act. atained therein, this ring defendant alleg * Plaintiff and Plaint. ssignor waited an sonable period of tir omplain of any alle, sach to the prejudice 3 answering det. gy...

Complaint in Intervention filed.

10 il 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 4 26 27 28 FOURTH AFi \TIVE DEFENSE Sl. TE OF LIMITATION Ser than Personal In, \S A FOURTH, FU SR, SEPARATE At TFIRMATIVE DEF. to said Cross- Comp: nd to each cause of . thereof, Intervener < » that said Cross-Co, t is barred by the prov. of Code of Civil Pro ~ Sections 338, 339, "337.15 and 343. In addi » Statutes of Limit. stated herein, this also asserts that s “y limitations for spec. a" made by plaii. re limited as desc ind set out under C. te Sec...

Answer filed.

mo ya A Ww Ss 10 ir 12 13 14 VW 7 18 19 20 23 24 25 26 o7 FIRST AF ‘TIVE DEFENSE (FAILUR. MITIGATE) Cross-Defena informed and believe upon that basis alle, tt the Cross- nlainant failed to tan ~voper measures and . ‘es to mitigate its alk “amages, Sai. ns or inactions worki. complete bar or dim 7 any recovery herein. ECOL “SIRMATIVE DEFL. (FAILURE Tu TE A CAUSE OF Av a ~ Cross-Ly So alleges that neitt. >ss-Complainant’s C. ‘omplaint nor any cause of action ass. % herein states fa...

Answer filed.

x i é i e z zOe ee= n o 4 2 6 2 a < 3 S = 3 s 23 24 25 26 (01 7352.000N764149.0 of action thereol, Defendant alleges t. -ontractual relationsh ts between Cross- Complainant and Cre ‘endant and, therefore s-Complainant's claii. breach of ract and/or equitable nity fails to state a cle on which relief can b. ‘ed against sa. »s-Defendant, insofai »ss-Complainant pur, assert those claims a said Cross- dant. FOURTEE: EFIRMATIVE DE. zc % (Statute Of Li. ons (Other Than Pt As a sep...

Answer filed.

A nN & 6 NY ll 12 Is 15 16 18 21 22 23 24 BS 27 28 - damage for any rv in the sums allege. »¢ unverified Com, or in any othey »r sums, or at all. FIRST AFFIR: “VE DEFENSE TU TRE COMPLAIN. 1. . ‘omplaint does not - facts sufficient to cx ite a cause of actic inst this answet >fendant. SEC AFFIRMATIVE. ‘NSE TO ENTIRE *PLAINT 2. Plaintiffs’ c Bairelessness and ne. ce have proximat ontributed to tha ats and damages cv Sy ined of, and, if so - bars or proportio. «reduces any| pe |...

Complaint in Intervention filed.

INT IN INTERVENTIC10 at 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 FOURTH AF. ATIVE DEFENSE ST. ‘E OF LIMITATION ‘er than Personal In, \S A FOURTH, FU SR, SEPARATE A! TFIRMATIVE DEF. to said Cross- Comp: nd to each cause of . thereof, Intervenor . » that said Cross-Co. 1 is barred by the prov of Code of Civil Pr ~ Sections 338, 339, 337.15 and 343. In addy >» Statutes of Limit. stated herein, this also asserts that s. sy limitations for spec a" made by plain. re limited as desei. ond ...

Complaint in Intervention filed.

n; WESTCO jia corporation; Y.10 11 14 15 16 17 20 21 22 23 26 27 238 SECOND AF) ATIVE DEFENSE CONTRIBUTOK *GLIGENCE 4S A SECOND, Fv SR, SEPARATE A. FFIRMATIVE DE: > to the Cross- Comp: ond to each cause o. n thereof, this Inter alleges that Cross-t inant was negligent . espect to the matt ‘eged in the Cross slaint and that saia ‘gence contributed to proximately causec alleged injuries a mages, if any, to v Complainant. a, % THIRD AFFIRM. ‘© DEFENSE FA % *ETOSTATE AC. 7 OF ACTIO...

Demurrer filed.

aI anu -& w 10 ll 13 16 V7 18 19 20 22 24 25 26 L RRER This Demur. rought pursuant to Cu ‘a Code of Civil Proc. 8 430.10 and is de on the following g- e Pursuant to C. ia Code of Civil Proc § 430.10(e), Plaintifi “e comp. » subject to demurrer . ground that it does nv » facts sufficient to cv * the respec uses of action in that not timely filed in av yee with the requirens of Code of Ci. Sredure § 337.15; 2. Put A 9 California Code ot "rocedure § 430.10(t,. tiffs First Cause © A...

Answer filed.

h 25, inclusivi 2011-00112083NUMBER: 2011-00112083 338.1, 339, 339. 40.35, 341, 341. *] Other or employees, damages in an: 337.1, 337.2, 337. $, 337.6, 337.15, 340.1, 340.2, 3 0.4, 360.5, 340.7 340.10, 340.15, 385, 344, 345, 3 “348, 349, 349.1, and 349.4. ntiff fails to a cause ofplying forort Title: Je ‘umber : ™ vs. MERCURY - ?ANCE 34-2 90112083 G et al. Page Five ANSW. Personal Inju. *roperty Damage ongful Death AFFIRMATIVE: LEGES AS A DEF. <. positive Dama...

Answer filed.

WILLIAM A. Ji (SBN 137611) OT10 11 12 13 16 17 18 is 20 22 23 24 25 26 Cross-. dant allege that the c ss-Defendant, and e. “them, named and unnamed in the slaint, were guilty o1 yence in and about t. ‘ters nlained of in the co. t, which proximatel, ed or contributed to mages or. »mplained of, if any, rat the Court is requ ‘9 determine and alle he percent. ‘negligence attributa. each of the co-Cross adants. x, SIXTH AFF. TIVE DEFENSE Cross-Det. * alleges that if the C T...

Answer filed.

aie, ‘aeUk ww 21 22 23 24 25 28 SECOND RMATIVEDEFEN. ‘OMPARATIVE FA. \ "HIRD AFFIRMATi EENSE - FAULT C MERS 5. The gy7s and damages com, J of by Plaintiff, if . sre were, were cithe: holly or in part direc ey’ legally caused by tl. igence of persons or . > other than these sring Defendants ana y% egligence is either in. fo Plaintiff by reasoi » relationship bet alaintiff and said per. * entities or compara. seduces the proportio. sgligence altribut. Sese answering Defen YURTH AFFI...

Answer (West Coast Industrial Flooring Inc's Answer To Complaint) filed.

Complaint Fi Trial Date: N/,15 16 17 21 22 23 24 a 28 AFFIRM, "E DEFENSES No Cause of Actio AS A SEPARATL TIRMATIVE DEFE. alleges that this Cu nt fails to state facts “sient to constitute se of action, or an, ze of action, again. answering Defenda. 2. Statutes. sitations AS A Sx AATE AFFIRMATI. GFENSE, alleges 1. » claims asserted b, Plaintiffs are barrea % State of Californ: nlicable statutes of tion, set forth in th ‘omia Code of civ edure beginning w. stion 335 and conti through...

Complaint in Intervention filed.

23 24 6 28 a ee ASAFi SEPARATE AND + MATIVE DEFENS. se complaint on file herein, intervenor a: that plaintiffs lack sv + to raise the issues . d and to seek the of prayed for therein och and every cause on. \S A SIXTH, SEPA. 7 AND AFFIRMAT, EFENSE to the com, on file herein, enor alleges that pl. > have waived all or, f the defects or defic s inthe real prope: ‘mprovements allege ‘¢ complaint when o they took possessio. control of said 2, -operty and improve. ASA sev. % SEPARATE AND RM...

Demurrer (to 1st Amended Complaint) filed.

2a nA ww & 10 12 13 17 18 i9 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 RADLEY, Cu. ASIANO. SABA ABEL KOWALS! 3900 Lachspur Lancing Circ Cunsaar CA 94939 ‘VEL (a15) dG. 0888, FAK (05) 64-0887 ANN M. ASIA: ROBERT W. MA MELISSA R. MEY. RADLEY, CURLE. 3Q._(SBN 094891) ESQ. (SBN 130353) 5SQ. {SBN rraS94) ANO, ‘RRABEE, ABEL & ALSKI, P.C. ; parepa Landing Cy ‘nite 200 “ wr, CA 94939 Te. e: (415) 464-8888 Facs. (415) 464-8887 E-Man [email protected])ls-) =m Attomeys + “endant CALIFORNi GLE PLY, INC. a ‘ ...

Answer filed.

10 11 12 13 16 Lt 18 19 22 23 24 25 28 Keith R Paw HOLLINGSHL ‘SBN 178168) » ASSOCIATES P O. Box 29332 Corporation and D *-500, inclusive, et a. Defendant. AN ‘ATED CROSS-AC Ss singular, gene and specifically. 0. insofar as they pe: > this answering Cr sustained any inju. damage as a result Cc Yetendant. ANS, Sacramento, CA 95 al 916.630 3803 Fo 2008 ~ 916.630 3848 \ [email protected] om by Ta Af Atte For Cross-Defenda. , LEIMER MASON.) NUS a e SUPERIOR CU OF C...

Answer filed.

a Dn UW Sf. Ww 10 11 12 3 15 16 17 18 49 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 MARK STOK 'N 201378) Law Office of N. torm 980 Ninth Street, 600 , “ORSED Sacramento, Califor “814 —— 7 ‘ephone: (916) 7. 32 (916) 739-0942 FEB 1,4 Attor. r Defendant MICHe. ‘LONG L a EY OEE 4. % Sy UPERIOR COUR CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAC. ENTO PC ®XLIO RECOVERY » CIATES, Case 74-2010-00644701 LLC, a ~ ANSWE. DEFENDANT Mi. =LD Plaintiff(s), & LONG TG ‘SPLAINT OF PLA. uF % PORTFOLK COVERY ASSOC. > vs. 4 LLC MICHAEL D LO....

Answer (Ike's Landscape Inc's Answer To Cross-Complaint) filed.

NDSCAPE, INC.'S Al HOME CORPORAuw 15 16 17 18 19 22 23 24 25 Weoamnd Hts CA #1387 eg) Pra.atoe nloyee, predecessor 0. ssor of Cross-Defenu ST_AFFIRMATIVE NSE (Fe to State a Cause of « \ 2. ye Cross-Complaint 1. state facts sufficient titute a cause of actic upon which re: a be granted against C Yefendant. The Cross slaint also seeks reliex * [against Cross-Defe. shat is not properly re hle by Cross-Compla Cross- »mplainant is therefor 4 from any recovery t Cross-Defendant, ‘OND AFFIRMA...

Opposition filed.

a —-ye £7 D Atte 9 e cet - SE 1]] Eric R. Hillier Bar No. 191654) oe ORS Tom D. Fama (& ar No. 261477) vent PM 3:59 Woon, SMITH, Heng x Genuan LLP iy JAM : ‘401 Willow Pass k. Tuite ss < neord, California 94 "982 LEGALPh S46 8: 925 222 3400 ¢ 925 356 8250 4 An. > for Defendant, We ?N PACIFIC HOUS. NC," 5 6 7 > & q Ae e SUr »R COURT OF THE TE OF CALIFORNi. 10 COUNTY « \CRAMENTO - UN. =D JURISDICTION 11 ‘ * B36 12 ||] SUZAN ‘ONTOYA, et al., & Sag NO. . 19-00067523-CU-b. a 13 int...

  « first    1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ... 400     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.