Prosecuting Patent Defects

Useful Rulings on Patent Defects

Recent Rulings on Patent Defects

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

    Feb 06, 2020

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

    Jan 30, 2020

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

    Jan 30, 2020

  • 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

    Jan 30, 2020

  • 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

    Jan 30, 2020

  • 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

    Jan 30, 2020

  • 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

    Jan 30, 2020

  • 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

    Jan 30, 2020

  • 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

    Jan 27, 2020

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

    Jan 13, 2020

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

    Jan 06, 2020

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

    Nov 19, 2019

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

    Oct 22, 2019

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

    Oct 08, 2019

(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

    Sep 05, 2019

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

    Aug 23, 2019

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

    Aug 20, 2019

(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

    Aug 15, 2019

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

    Aug 02, 2019

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

    Jul 18, 2019

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

    Jun 18, 2019

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

    May 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

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

    May 06, 2019

DAVID ROBLES ET AL VS WELLS FARGO & COMPANY ET AL

A patent defect is one which is apparent by reasonable inspection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 337.1, subd. (e).) “In the context of a patent defect, the word ‘patent’ ‘refers to the patency of danger and not merely to exterior visiblity.’ [Citation.]” (Sanchez v. Swinerton & Walberg Co. (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1461, 1471.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2019

CHRISTIAN GRIFFIN VS BLACK MOUNTAIN RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

Plaintiffs' demurrer based on failure to plead subsections of CCP § 337.1 and 337.15 and CC § 896, et seq." is sustained. Plaintiffs' demurrer based on specificity is overruled for the same reasons stated below. Affirmative Defense No. 10: Sustained. This affirmative defense is pled as follows: TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unclean Hands) 11.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

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 gather your results.