Prosecuting Patent Defects

Useful Rulings on Patent Defects

Recent Rulings on Patent Defects

KRABER VS. PEYVAN

(Id. at 288 (“this case involves a one-time known damage event, the equivalent of a patent defect”) and 289 (“Where the Leaf plaintiffs were diligent in their attempts to ascertain the cause of their subsidence, including hiring experts and promptly pursuing claims against the only identified wrongdoers, plaintiffs in this case were not.”) The diligence of the cross-complainants here and what their experts could reasonably have discovered in 2017 rather than in 2019 is not yet known.

  • Hearing

SANGJOON JAY LEE, , AS TRUSTEE OF THE SANGJOON AND JOONGWHA LEE LIVING TRUST DATED APRIL 24 2008, ET AL. VS PAUL MCGRATH, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Proc. § 337.1(a). “Section 337.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that an action based upon a patent deficiency resulting from the activities associated with construction of an improvement to real property … be brought within four years after substantial completion of such improvement. A patent defect is one which can be discovered by such an inspection as would be made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence. [Citations.]

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

NATURES PRODUCE VS DEDEAUX PROPERTIES LLC ET AL

“[Code of Civil Procedure] Sections 337.1 and 337.15 apply to actions for damages against persons involved in the construction of improvements to real property, … , and establish four-year and 10-year statutes of limitation for patent and latent defects, respectively.” (Mills v. Forestex Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 643.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SAMUEL CAMARISTA VS. MERITAGE HOMES

Code of Civil Procedure §§ 337.1 and 337.15 do not apply to a cause of action under the Right to Repair Act, Civil Code § 895, et seq., which has a separate statute of limitations under Civil Code § 941. Civil Code § 941(d), by its terms makes Code of Civil Procedure §§ 337.1 and 337.15 inapplicable to claims brought under the Right to Repair Act, Civil Code § 895 et seq.

  • Hearing

CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. VS WENDT & SONS CONSTRUCTION, INC.

Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1 establishes a four year statute of repose for injuries resulting from patent construction defects while section 337.15 sets a 10-year statute of repose for injuries resulting from latent construction defects. (Mills v. Forestex Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 644.) Thus, which section applies turns on whether a defect is latent or patent. (Ibid.) Whether a defect is patent or latent “depends on whether it is ‘apparent by reasonably inspection.’” (Mills v.

  • Hearing

CHEVRON U.S.A. INC. VS WENDT & SONS CONSTRUCTION, INC.

Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1 establishes a four year statute of repose for injuries resulting from patent construction defects while section 337.15 sets a 10-year statute of repose for injuries resulting from latent construction defects. (Mills v. Forestex Co. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 625, 644.) Thus, which section applies turns on whether a defect is latent or patent. (Ibid.) Whether a defect is patent or latent “depends on whether it is ‘apparent by reasonably inspection.’” (Mills v.

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Presiding

  • County

    Santa Clara County, CA

HERNANDEZ VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

B-F) As the uneven or cracked roadway is a patent defect under CCP § 337.1(e), plaintiff's claims against moving defendant are time-barred. (See, Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1333-1339)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HERNANDEZ VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

B-F) As the uneven or cracked roadway is a patent defect under CCP § 337.1(e), plaintiff's claims against moving defendant are time-barred. (See, Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1333-1339)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HERNANDEZ VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

B-F) As the uneven or cracked roadway is a patent defect under CCP § 337.1(e), plaintiff's claims against moving defendant are time-barred. (See, Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1333-1339)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HERNANDEZ VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

B-F) As the uneven or cracked roadway is a patent defect under CCP § 337.1(e), plaintiff's claims against moving defendant are time-barred. (See, Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1333-1339)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HERNANDEZ VS CITY OF SAN DIEGO

B-F) As the uneven or cracked roadway is a patent defect under CCP § 337.1(e), plaintiff's claims against moving defendant are time-barred. (See, Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1333-1339)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MCCOY ELECTRIC CORPORATION V. ANNETTE RUBIN, ET AL.

waive, extinguish, relinquish satisfaction, release, acquit and discharge, each other as well as persons described herein from liability, claims, indemnities, causes of action, demands, rights, damages, obligations, contracts, debts, controversies, costs, losses of any kind whatsoever, known or unknown, past, present or future, suspected or unsuspected, disclosed or undisclosed, anticipated or unanticipated, patent and latent construction defects as defined by the California Code of Civil Procedure sections 337.1

  • Hearing

BROWN VS BRENEXUS OFFICE EDITION OWNERS ASSOCIATION

“[A] patent defect is one which can be discovered by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence. In contrast, a latent defect is hidden, and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection.” The Luckman Partnership, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 30, 35. There is question of fact whether the continuing diseased condition of the magnolia trees was patent or latent.

  • Hearing

MCCOY ELECTRIC CORPORATION V. ANNETTE RUBIN

., whether latent or patent. They have also failed to provide a date for when the work was completed, making it impossible to determine whether the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Under California law, the statute of limitations for defects in design to real property is dependent upon the type of defect alleged. Actions for patent defects (defects that can be discovered upon reasonable inspection) must be brought within four years after completion of the work. Code Civ. Proc. §337.1, subd.

  • Hearing

REBECCA SIMON VS REBECCA WOOLF ET AL

Here, there is at least a triable issue of material fact as to whether the defect was patent or latent. Merrill v. Buck (1962) 58 Cal. 2d 552, 558 is closely on point. In that case, Plaintiff had fallen down a set of stairs that led from the main floor to the basement. As with here, the stairs were behind a closed door and had no landing. The Court found that the jury had reasonably found that the stairway constituted a concealed hazard. The jury could so find in this case as well.

  • Hearing

JOSEPH WOLF VS, REMPE CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL

Proc. § 337.1 (1).) The allegations make clear that the subject property located at 1080 Edgewood Avenue in Mill Valley, California is a single family residence. (See FAC 1H] 14, 17-18 & 23.)

  • Hearing

VERONICA MARES VS HHB PROPERTIES LLC ET AL

.” * * * “Responsible Party” shall assume all risks for each and all attendees for any defects in the condition of the Location, whether patent or latent. * * * “The following are prohibited without the Property Owner’s permission: (a) Attaching or drilling into any existing building or structures; (b) Taping anything to painted surfaces; (c) Any and all pyrotechnic devices; (d) Access to the roof or any part thereof; (e) No gaffer tape or duct tape on any floor surfaces or walls; (f) Bringing animals to Location

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Defects, latent or patent, in the Property go to issues of warranty, not illegal purpose. Pixior also argues that a lease “places the burden of compliance on the leasor (sic.)”, which either expressly or impliedly agrees to use the premises in compliance with all laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of any pertinent governmental authority. Salazar v. Maradeaga, (“Salazar”) (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 4. Opp. at 8.

  • Hearing

MARK ELLENSOHN VS CITY OF BURBANK ET AL

The application of the exception thus depends on whether the defect at issue is “patentorlatent.” HHS argues that MCI, the owner, by accepting the work done by HHS, assumed responsibility for HHS’s work, and at the time of acceptance became liable to third parties for such work.

  • Hearing

KRANKL V. ROWLES HOLDINGS, LLC

In any event, the court denies Krankls’ summary adjudication motion for a more patent defect. Krankls simply list in serial fashion the affirmative defenses it challenges under “Issue No. 4” in their separate statement (1st , 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, and 15th ); they then list in serial fashion undisputed issues No. 1 to 31 under the Issue No. 4 heading, generically.

  • Hearing

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

There were two different statutes of limitation for patent defects and latent defects, however, and therefore it did not make sense to take an approach under which “only one statute could apply and all construction defects at a development would have to be uniformly classified as patent or latent.” (Id. at 289.)

  • Hearing

WANG SHIU HSIA HUANG VS LI-YA HUANG ET. AL.

Plaintiffs hereby further fully and irrevocably release the Li-Ya Released Parties’ predecessors, successors, assigns, representatives, counsel, attorneys, past, present and future agents, actual apparent and implied servants, employees, representatives, insurers, and each of them who have been or may be in privity with the Li-Ya Release Parties from any and all liabilities, claims, causes of action, whether known or unknown, existing or potential, suspect or unspecified, latent or patent, direct or indirect

  • Hearing

JOSE G VILLAGRANA VS SCOTTYS GAS STATION

A patent defect is one that can be discovered by an inspection made in the exercise of ordindary care and prudence. (Lewis v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 690, 697.) By contrast, a latent defect is one which is hidden and which would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. (Ibid.) Plaintiff argues the crack was a concealed hazard.

  • Hearing

ALLYSON MARTIN VS WAYPOINTE HOMES ET AL

They contend they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law because (a) the defect at issue was trivial, (b) Plaintiff cannot show Defendants had notice of the dangerous condition, (c) the condition was open and obvious, and (d) the defect was patent. Initial Notes Pursuant to the Court’s General Order Re: Mandatory Electronic Filing for Civil, dated 11/05/18, ¶d(4)F, parties must lodge courtesy copies of all documents related to a summary judgment motion directly in the department.

  • Hearing

KEMPER INDEPENDENCE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. OETIKER INC

(d) [Code of Civil Procedure §§ 337.15 and 337.1] do not apply to actions under this title.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

1 2 3 4 5     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.