Prosecuting Patent Defects

Useful Resources for Patent Defects

Recent Rulings on Patent Defects

TECNO-ADVANCED INC VS LEGENDARY BUILDERS CORP ET AL

In paragraph 3.5.1 of the GC Contract, LBC further specifically guarantees and warrants to GP that, among other things: “[T]he Work will be fully and finally performed in a first-class, workmanlike manner,” “the Work shall be performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract Documents and Applicable Laws (defined below) at a cost not to exceed the GMP as adjusted,” and “the Project will be free from defects (whether latent or patent) not inherent in the quality required or permitted, in workmanship and

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2018

TECNO-ADVANCED INC VS LEGENDARY BUILDERS CORP ET AL

In paragraph 3.5.1 of the GC Contract, LBC further specifically guarantees and warrants to GP that, among other things: “[T]he Work will be fully and finally performed in a first-class, workmanlike manner,” “the Work shall be performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract Documents and Applicable Laws (defined below) at a cost not to exceed the GMP as adjusted,” and “the Project will be free from defects (whether latent or patent) not inherent in the quality required or permitted, in workmanship and

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2018

PATEL VS. RDM CONSTRUCTION CO.

Defendants’ “patent defect” arguments fail because defendants rely on plaintiffs’ observation and repair of minor cracks in the grout and lifting around the pool in 2010, as compared to their 2013 observation of significant and extensive cracks in the driveway, patio, pool deck, front walkway, retaining wall and stucco.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2018

PATEL VS. RDM CONSTRUCTION CO.

Defendants’ “patent defect” arguments fail because defendants rely on plaintiffs’ observation and repair of minor cracks in the grout and lifting around the pool in 2010, as compared to their 2013 observation of significant and extensive cracks in the driveway, patio, pool deck, front walkway, retaining wall and stucco.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2018

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

    Aug 23, 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

    Aug 23, 2018

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

REED V. STEELEX INDUSTRIAL, INC. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

For purposes of demurrer, Cross-Complainants’ indemnity and contribution claims are not time barred under CCP 337.1 or 338. Because the court finds the above causes of action adequately pled, Cross-Defendants’ Declaratory Relief claim is adequate. If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary.

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2018

DENISE APOCADA VS CITY OF LONG BEACH

In Reply, Defendant contends that if a defect is obvious in the context of common experience, California courts have held that a determination of patent defect may be made as a matter of law. It is true that a court may make such a determination as a matter of law. However, such a determination cannot be made where the court is limited to considering only the face of the pleadings and evidence subject to judicial notice. IV.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2018

MAURO GUMPAL V. QUEEN OF THE VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s arguments regarding Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1 and 337.1 are misplaced as only the first cause of action for medical negligence is alleged against this Defendant. A Case Management Conference is set for September 26, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. in Dept. I. 2) DEFENDANT JENNIFER GUNNELL, M.D.’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT TENTATIVE RULING: In light of the Court’s ruling above, Defendant’s Motion to Strike is MOOT.

  • Hearing

    Jul 26, 2018

LAUREN ENGLANDER VS SHEPHERD OF THE HILLS CHURCH ET AL

If the defect is obvious, a determination of patent defect may be made as a matter of law. Ibid. The Court finds that TB Penick has established that an average person during the course of a reasonable inspection would have discovered the defect. TB Penick submits photographs that illustrate the alleged dangerous condition where a significant drop can be seen and an absence of any barrier between the columns is also visible. UMF No. 14; Clinton Decl., 2:7-10; Exhs. C, B.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2018

MARIA FRESCAS ET AL VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ET AL

Demurrer is OVERULED. 5th – 7th Affirmative Defenses Defendant contends Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the statute of limitations per CCP 337.1, 337.15, and 338. Plaintiffs may conduct discovery to obtain information regarding why their claims are barred under these code sections. Demurrer is OVERULED. 8th Affirmative Defense Defendant alleges that Plaintiffs lack standing.

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

LESLIE LYNNE SHRUBB ET AL VS NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA LLC ET AL

This raises a triable issue of material fact regarding whether the defect was latent or patent. Third, Plaintiffs argue in opposition that City Commercial waived its right to use the completed and accepted doctrine. Plaintiffs cite to the Master Construction Agreement between Universal and C.W. (“Prime Contract”), and the Subcontract between C.W. and City Commercial. In the Prime Contract and Work Authorization No. USH-14-7072-WDF between Universal (owner) and C.W.

  • Hearing

    Jun 08, 2018

WEIDEMANN VS. TRINITY HIGHWAY PRODUCTS LLC

. §§ 337.1(a), 337.15(a). The evidence that creates these triable issues includes: (i) the declarations of Raymond L. Martin, Steven Funk, and Brian G. Pfeifer, Ph.D.; and (ii) D.R. Horton's Exhibits A and B and Plaintiff's Exhibits 20 and 21. The Court also finds there are triable issues of material fact as to (i) whether D.R. Horton breached its duty of care by designing, installing, and/or maintaining a guardrail that was unsafe and (ii) whether the guardrail caused Plaintiff's injuries.

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

WEIDEMANN VS. TRINITY HIGHWAY PRODUCTS LLC

. §§ 337.1(a), 337.15(a). The evidence that creates these triable issues includes: (i) the declarations of Raymond L. Martin, Steven Funk, and Brian G. Pfeifer, Ph.D.; and (ii) D.R. Horton's Exhibits A and B and Plaintiff's Exhibits 20 and 21. The Court also finds there are triable issues of material fact as to (i) whether D.R. Horton breached its duty of care by designing, installing, and/or maintaining a guardrail that was unsafe and (ii) whether the guardrail caused Plaintiff's injuries.

  • Hearing

    May 31, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA V. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

Motion for Summary Judgment: Hartford moves for summary judgment on the grounds that UC has failed to state a claim for breach of contract and the breach of written contract cause of action is barred by the four year limitation in CCP § 337(1), a claim for patent defects in construction is barred by the four year limitation in CCP § 337.1(a), and a claim for latent defects in construction is barred by the ten year limitation in CCP § 337.15(a). UC opposes the motion. a.

  • Hearing

    May 14, 2018

LYNMAR WINERY, LLC V. WRIGHT CONTRACTING, INC.

Thus, because there are disputed issues of fact regarding whether the defects underlying the complaint are “latentorpatent,” summary judgment is precluded.

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2018

TERPSTRA V. THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC. DBA CGI, INC. ET AL.

Here, Navarro makes no argument and directs no facts to the issue of whether the alleged defect in the fence was patent or latent. Navarro has failed in its burden of production on summary judgment on this theory. Second Cause of Action – Premises Liability Plaintiff confirms that this cause of action is not directed at Navarro. Third Cause of Action – Strict Products Liability Navarro moved only for summary judgment, and not for summary adjudication.

  • Hearing

    Mar 19, 2018

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

EBRAHIM YOUNESI ET AL VS BOB OLODORT ET AL

Goldman (1986) 42 Cal. 3d 108, 110-111, 126 [227 Cal.Rptr. 817, 720 P.2d 476], a former owner was not liable for injuries suffered by a child who nearly drowned in a pond, a patent defect created by the former owner, because possession and control of the premises had ended. . . . Aside from the statutory duty of care imposed by Civil Code section 1714, some situations give rise to a common law duty affirmatively to disclose a danger created by a third person. (See 4 Witkin, Summary of Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2018

HUGO HERNANDEZ ET AL VS LB VILLA PARK LLC

In opposition, cross-complainant contends that there are triable issues of material fact regarding whether the alleged defect on the stairs was a latent or a patent defect. Cross-complainant argues that the Completed and Accepted Doctrine is inapplicable to this case because the alleged defect, if there is one, is clearly not patent. Cross-complainant contends that Pacific has failed to identify any patent defect in this case and disputes the existence of a defect.

  • Hearing

    Dec 11, 2017

SILVER MOUNTAIN MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION VS. ALPINE INN LLC [E-FILE]

AC Paving raises three main arguments to support its motion for summary judgment – 1) AC Paving complied with the owner's specifications and thus fulfilled its legal duties; 2) there are no triable issues of material fact as to the negligence cause of action; and 3) Plaintiff's claims are barred by the CCP § 338 3-year statute of limitations and the CCP § 337.1 4-year statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

MOHAN VS GREYSTONE HOMES [COMP

First, to the extent Greystone is arguing that either CCP section 337.15 or 337.1 somehow apply here, section 941 is unambiguous: “Sections 337.15 and 337.1 … do not apply to [SB 800 actions].” The plain language makes no distinction between “repose” and “limitations” periods. CCP sections 337.15 and 337.1 simply “do not apply to [SB 800 actions].” In addition, as quoted above, section 941 itself repeatedly speaks in terms of “time limitations” and “statute of limitations.”

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2017

GERMAN HERRERA ROMERO VS BAJA RANCH SUPERMARKETS-E T FOOD IN

If the defect was patent, E&T had the responsibility to correct it and ensure the safety of the system. In the latter circumstance, E&T’s failure to remedy an obvious danger might render it liable as an intervening cause and Gatekeeper would not be liable. Neither party addressed this issue in its moving papers or separate statements.

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2017

ROMERO VS. DONAHUE SCHRIBER RE

Whether or not a condition is concealed is often discussed in terms of the condition being latent or patent. “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.] This is contrasted with a latent defect, one which is hidden and which would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. [Citations.]” ’ [Citations.]” (Geertz v. Ausonio (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1367.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 13, 2017

ROMERO VS. DONAHUE SCHRIBER REALTY GROUP, L.P.

Provide legal authorities that discuss the standard for determining whether a hazard is latent or patent. (2) What is legal standard or test for the “practical necessity” exception (with pinpoint citations for this standard)? Has this exception been applied in a case since Privette?

  • Hearing

    Aug 16, 2017

LAMEL JOHNSON V. RALPH HOROWITZ, ET AL.

Under California law, “a patent defect is one which can be discovered by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence.” Luckman Partnership, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 30, 35. Because the area above the freezer was completed and accepted, LDAC argues, it cannot be held liable for negligence. Plaintiff disputes that LDAC’s work was completed and accepted by The Fresh Market prior to his accident on January 2, 2014.

  • Hearing

    Aug 01, 2017

  « 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.