Prosecuting Patent Defects

Useful Resources for Patent Defects

Recent Rulings on Patent Defects

76-100 of 111 results

MARIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE VS. MARCY WONG

See CCP 337.1(b) The test to determine whether a deficiency is patent is not a subjective one, applied to each individual user; rather, it is an objective test based on the reasonable expectations of the average consumer. See Delon Hampton & Associates, Chartered v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 250, 256; The Luckman Partnership, Inc. v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 30, 36. 1.

  • Hearing

    Jul 31, 2017

  • Judge Ed Weil
  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

STEVE TEPPER ET AL VS ALAN NOELLE ENGINEERING ET AL

The parties differ on the issue of whether the defects were patent or latent. “The test to determine whether a construction defect is patent is an objective test that asks ‘whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect.’ The test assumes that an inspection takes place.’

  • Hearing

    Jul 05, 2017

JACQUELINE PAGE VS VISTA OCEANO LA MESA VENTURE, LLC

or patent defects, negligence, non-disclosure, fraud, breach of contract, or otherwise (a ‘Dispute’).

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2017

STEVE TEPPER ET AL VS ALAN NOELLE ENGINEERING ET AL

The parties differ on the issue of whether the defects were patent or latent. “The test to determine whether a construction defect is patent is an objective test that asks ‘whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect.’ The test assumes that an inspection takes place.’

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2017

AIR WING LLC VS. ONE PIPER RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

Which of the two statutes applies turns on whether the defect is latent or patent. "Whether a construction defect is latent or patent depends on whether it is 'apparent by reasonable inspection.' (§§ 337.1, subd. (e); 337.15, subd. (b).) 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

    May 25, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIR WING LLC VS. ONE PIPER RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

Which of the two statutes applies turns on whether the defect is latent or patent. "Whether a construction defect is latent or patent depends on whether it is 'apparent by reasonable inspection.' (§§ 337.1, subd. (e); 337.15, subd. (b).) 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

    May 25, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIR WING LLC VS. ONE PIPER RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

Which of the two statutes applies turns on whether the defect is latent or patent. "Whether a construction defect is latent or patent depends on whether it is 'apparent by reasonable inspection.' (§§ 337.1, subd. (e); 337.15, subd. (b).) 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

    May 25, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIR WING LLC VS. ONE PIPER RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

Which of the two statutes applies turns on whether the defect is latent or patent. "Whether a construction defect is latent or patent depends on whether it is 'apparent by reasonable inspection.' (§§ 337.1, subd. (e); 337.15, subd. (b).) 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

    May 25, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

AIR WING LLC VS. ONE PIPER RANCH LLC [E-FILE]

Which of the two statutes applies turns on whether the defect is latent or patent. "Whether a construction defect is latent or patent depends on whether it is 'apparent by reasonable inspection.' (§§ 337.1, subd. (e); 337.15, subd. (b).) 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

    May 25, 2017

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

SPRANKLES VS SULLIVAN

The Court is further persuaded that the claim against FATCO is time barred pursuant to CCP § 337.1. FATCO shall file a judgment of dismissal. This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, May 19, 2017. If no party appears at the hearing, this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court as of May 19, 2017.

  • Hearing

    May 18, 2017

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

CHARLES VASILE VS PLANTATION SHUTTER CO INC ET AL

However, the American Co. answer specifically states: “Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or in part by any and all applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to Code of Civil Procedure §§ 335 through 349.4, inclusive, California Business & Professions Code §7071.11, California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 337.1, 337.15, 337(1), 338, 339 and 340, et seq.” Defendant American Contractors Indemnity Company’s reliance on CCP §337(1) meets the pleading requirement in CCP §458.

  • Hearing

    May 10, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

WHITE VS. GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

Raised paving stones on a patio are a patent defect. (Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1339, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 300 ["Pavement, 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."].) Defective construction of a landing that allows water to pool on the landing and to drain into an office is a patent defect. (Sanchez v.

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WHITE VS. GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

Raised paving stones on a patio are a patent defect. (Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1339, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 300 ["Pavement, 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."].) Defective construction of a landing that allows water to pool on the landing and to drain into an office is a patent defect. (Sanchez v.

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WHITE VS. GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT

Raised paving stones on a patio are a patent defect. (Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1339, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 300 ["Pavement, 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."].) Defective construction of a landing that allows water to pool on the landing and to drain into an office is a patent defect. (Sanchez v.

  • Hearing

    May 04, 2017

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RAFAEL MENDIVE VS NLC ENTERPRISE INC ET AL

Succinctly stated, the “completed and accepted” doctrine relieves a contractor from liability to third parties for injuries resulting from a patent defect to a finished project which the property owner accepts. Neiman v. Leo A. Daly Co. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 962, 969.

  • Hearing

    Feb 09, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LAURIE BASSETT VS DONALD KELLIHER ET AL

CCP § 337.1 and 2009 and 2010 Repairs: CCP § 337.1 does not define substantial completion of the improvement as CCP § 337.15(g) does. So it does not appear to add a year to the cessation of work. An action for damages for any patent defect cannot be brought more than four years from January 2010. So, if CCP § 337.1 applies, the entire action against Mendoza is barred. A patent defect is “a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection.” CCP § 337.1(e).

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2017

WILDER VS. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY

Ausonio (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1367 ["Whether a construction defect is latent or patent depends on whether it is 'apparent by reasonable inspection.'"] The court, in finding a triable issue of material fact to support a denial of summary judgment, bears in mind that declarations and evidence offered in opposition to the motion must be liberally construed, while the moving party's evidence must be construed strictly.

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

WILDER VS. THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY

Ausonio (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1363, 1367 ["Whether a construction defect is latent or patent depends on whether it is 'apparent by reasonable inspection.'"] The court, in finding a triable issue of material fact to support a denial of summary judgment, bears in mind that declarations and evidence offered in opposition to the motion must be liberally construed, while the moving party's evidence must be construed strictly.

  • Hearing

    Nov 29, 2016

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

THE MARK CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS THE MARK CONDOMINIUMS LLC [E-FILE]

In reply, Brewer argues that the alleged physical damage to the cooling tower is a patent defect. A " 'patent deficiency' means a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection." (§ 337.1, subd. (e); see Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336, [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 300].)

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2016

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

THE MARK CONDOMINIUM OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS THE MARK CONDOMINIUMS LLC [E-FILE]

In reply, Brewer argues that the alleged physical damage to the cooling tower is a patent defect. A " 'patent deficiency' means a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection." (§ 337.1, subd. (e); see Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336, [54 Cal.Rptr.2d 300].)

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2016

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

BRAYAN FERNANDEZ VS. ROGER SPAYDE

The applicable statute of limitation period, CCP §337.1, and the complete-and-accepted doctrine provide a complete defense to the Complaint. Plaintiff has failed to show a triable issue of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment. As the Court has previously noted, even the most cursory of examination of the attic space at issue would have revealed the hole and its danger.

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2016

MCCOY VS CA DEPT OF TRANSP

Finally, as noted in Harris' Moving Brief, for purposes of the application of the "completed and accepted" doctrine, whether the defect was originally latent or patent is not dispositive. Instead, what matters is whether the defect became sufficiently patent at some point prior to Plaintiff's accident that the owner of the site, Caltrans, could have discovered it by reasonable inspection. (See Sanchez, supra, 47 Cal.App.4th at p. 1471.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 29, 2016

STEVE TEPPER ET AL VS ALAN NOELLE ENGINEERING ET AL

ANE focuses on the location of the batteries, which it says was directly observable and a patent defect. But the alleged defect is not just the placement of the batteries. Plaintiffs allege the batteries produced toxic vapor and were not properly ventilated. [Complaint ¶¶6, 9, and 10] These defects do not appear to be readily observable. Based on the allegations in the complaint, the claim is not barred by the completed and accepted doctrine. c.

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2015

HERBERT HOCHMAN VS. CRAIG PRICE

Daily Co (2012) 210 CA 4th 962, 969; 4 year statute of limitations for patent defects - CCP 337.1. P did not allege that any defect on the bridge was latent in his original or first amended complaint and would not be able to rely on a latent defect theory. Neiman v Leo A. Daily Co (2012) 210 CA 4th 962, 969. (Not that it would have mattered since P also did not file his complaint within the10 year statute of limitations for latent defects under CCP 337.15.)

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2015

IN RE THE LIPARI BYPASS TRUST

Petitioner (Louis' daughter Mary) alleges a patent defect in the chain of title which would have put the new buyers on notice. On January 28, 2015, the matter was referred to mediation. On April 23, 2015, the buyers at 1142 Corte Madera, Camarillo, filed a verified response, alleging that they are bona fide purchasers for value. Take time estimates and set for trial. gmr

  • Hearing

    May 06, 2015

  • Type

    Probate

  • Sub Type

    Trust

  « 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.