Prosecuting Patent Defects

Useful Resources for Patent Defects

Recent Rulings on Patent Defects

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

MAKSIMOVIC VS. NEWREZ

Further, if there had been such a patent defect in the notice of default, why was it not alleged during the two-year pendency of the first civil action, when plaintiffs were represented by the same counsel who represents them now? Second, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the defect was prejudicial.

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2019

WILLIAM WRIGHT VS CITY OF LONG BEACH ET AL

CJ points out that LBT has its own MSJ pending in which it argues that neither LBT nor CJ created a patent or latent defect. Given the totality of these circumstances, the court finds that the settlement is fair and within the ballpark. The theory of liability overlooks that a contractor to a Charter City such as Long Beach has its duties strictly defined by the contract. Unless the scope of work included painting curbs, there would be no duty to do so.

  • Hearing

    Mar 19, 2019

MANWAH HO VS. REEF REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC

"A patent defect can be discovered by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, whereas a latent defect is hidden and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection." (Delon Hampton & Associates, Chartered v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 250, 255.) Whether a condition is a patent defect may be decided as a matter of law. (See Neiman v. Leo A. Daly Co. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 962, 970.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RAY GARIBAY VS DENNYS ET AL

Further, “[p]avement, and the dangers attendant to it, are matters of such common experience that a visible defect substantial enough to cause a pedestrian to trip and fall constitutes a patent defect. Such a conclusion may be determined as a matter of law on summary judgment.” (Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal. App. 4th 1326, 1339 [citations omitted].) The burden shifts to plaintiff who has stated that he does not oppose the motion.

  • Hearing

    Feb 20, 2019

NOUGDENG SAVENGRITH ET AL VS CITY OF POMONA ET AL

Under CCP § 337.1 “patent deficiency” is defined as “a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection.” “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. This is contrasted with a latent defect, one which is hidden and which would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection.” (Wagner v. State of California (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 922, 927.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

THE PLAZA-IRVINE OWNERS ASSOCIATION V. JWC CONSTRUCTION, INC., ET AL.

Plaintiff argues that either Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1 (four years for patent defects) or section 337.15 (ten years for latent defects) applies. The Court need not at this time rule on the issue of what statute of limitations applies to the claims alleged in the Complaint. The work is alleged to have continued through June of 2016. (Complaint, ¶ 25.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2019

ALAN NAITO ET AL VS CENTEX HOMES REALTY COMPANY ET AL

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, actions against defendants who design or perform real estate construction must be brought within four years of completion. (Code Civ. Proc. § 337.1(a).) This section applies only to “patent” deficiencies. (Code Civ. Proc. § 337.1(a)(1), (2), (3).) Defendants argue that the property was completed no later than July 26, 2005, which makes this action untimely under the statute.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Stephen I. Goorvitch or Elaine Lu

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HEDSTROM V. CAP

(“Westcare defendants”) remove Code of Civil Procedure sections 337, 337.1, 337.15, and 339.1 They add sections 312, 316, 317, 340.1, 340.2, 340.3 and 343. No reason for these changes appears in the motion. Sections 312 and 343 are general statements.

  • Hearing

    Dec 17, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MONDE OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS NINTH AVENUE JOINT VENTURE LP [E-FILE]

(d) Sections 337.15 and 337.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to actions under this title.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MONDE OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS NINTH AVENUE JOINT VENTURE LP [E-FILE]

(d) Sections 337.15 and 337.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to actions under this title.

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SMART CHOICE REMODELING INC VS. DAVID SHAW

or patent, which have existed or may have existed, or which do exist, or will hereafter can, shall, or may exist, which directly or indirectly arise from, and/or relate in any way to Shaw's claims against Cross-Defendants, and each of them, arising from the Third Amended Cross-Complaint only.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

RAY GARIBAY VS DENNYS ET AL

Further, “[p]avement, and the dangers attendant to it, are matters of such common experience that a visible defect substantial enough to cause a pedestrian to trip and fall constitutes a patent defect. Such a conclusion may be determined as a matter of law on summary judgment.” Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal. App. 4th 1326, 1339 (citations omitted). The burden shifts to plaintiff who has failed to present any evidence to raise a triable issue of material fact.

  • Hearing

    Nov 09, 2018

FALQUAY VS. DAYANI CONSTRUCTION

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. This is contrasted with a latent defect, one which is hidden and which would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. (Geertz v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

FALQUAY VS. DAYANI CONSTRUCTION

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. This is contrasted with a latent defect, one which is hidden and which would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. (Geertz v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 08, 2018

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

ARMSTRONG & ASSOCIATES INC VS A R J CONSTRUCTION INC ET AL

Accordingly, Harrison’s assertion that the defect was patent is disputed and cannot support its summary judgment motion. Harrison next argues that Armstrong’s equitable indemnity claim fails because Armstrong and Harrison are not joint tortfeasors. To state a claim for equitable indemnity and contribution, there must be a joint tort or contractual obligation to another for damages. Major Clients Agency v. Diemer (1998) 67 Cal. App.4th 1116, 1131.

  • Hearing

    Nov 02, 2018

  • Judge Donna Geck
  • County

    Santa Barbara County, CA

RENAISSANCE RESIDENTIAL VS. STERLING PROPERTIES

The warranty theories will be governed by the shorter of the applicable statute of limitation (presumably CCP § 337) or statutes of repose (CCP § 337.1 or 337.15). (Liptak v. Diane Apartments, Inc. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 762, 769.) However, the demurrer is not sustained on the ground that the claim is barred by Commercial Code section 2725 (1). That statute of limitations applies to the sale of goods. (See Filmservice Labs. v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

JAMES P WERSCHING TRUSTEE OF THE SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA PROPERTY TRUST DATED OCTOBER 21 2008 VS R MARTY SMITH [E-FILE]

TSPM's argument is contrary to the express language of CC § 941(d) ["Sections 337.15 and 337.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to actions under this title"]. TSPM provides no authority espousing TSPM's interpretation of CC § 941. The court is persuaded by Plaintiff's interpretation that the CC § 941 10-year statute of limitations commences upon substantial completion of the entire structure, not upon completion of and individual contractor's work.

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

JAMES P WERSCHING TRUSTEE OF THE SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA PROPERTY TRUST DATED OCTOBER 21 2008 VS R MARTY SMITH [E-FILE]

TSPM's argument is contrary to the express language of CC § 941(d) ["Sections 337.15 and 337.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to actions under this title"]. TSPM provides no authority espousing TSPM's interpretation of CC § 941. The court is persuaded by Plaintiff's interpretation that the CC § 941 10-year statute of limitations commences upon substantial completion of the entire structure, not upon completion of and individual contractor's work.

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2018

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

CHOCEK VS PSARA

Further, the subject claims are not barred by the statute of limitations contained in CCP § 337.1. The section does not apply to indemnity actions. (Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 468, 479 – 480.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2018

HAMPTON VS HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

From the evidence before the Court, the doorstop itself appears to have been at most a patent defect, in that it was open and could have been seen by anyone exercising ordinary care. It would have been the “duty [of the District] to inspect the work and ascertain its safety, and thus the [District’s] acceptance of the work shifts liability for its safety to the [District], provided that a reasonable inspection would disclose the defect.” Id.

  • Hearing

    Sep 28, 2018

  « first    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.