What are the standards for residential construction?

Useful Rulings on Standards for Residential Construction

Recent Rulings on Standards for Residential Construction

PATEL M.D. VS. JELD-WEN, INC.

The Right to Repair Act, including Civil Code § 896, does not apply by its terms to the construction of this property based on Plaintiffs’ allegations. Plaintiffs' first cause of action for negligence under Civil Code § 896 is sustained, without leave to amend, based on Civil Code § 938. B. Second Cause of Action (Negligence) 1.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

CHIOTTI, ET AL. V. K HOVNANIAN HOMES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL.

The Complaint, filed on May 16, 2018, sets forth the 25 following causes of action: (1) Violation of Building Standards as Set Forth in California Civil 26 Code § 896; (2) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; (3) Breach of Contract; and 27 (4) Breach of Express Warranty. 1 Now before the court is the motion of Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company 2 (“Ironshore”) to intervene and file a complaint-in-intervention on behalf of its insured Legacy 3 Plumbing Company, Inc. (“Legacy”).

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

DEREK ROHAN VS JAYBELL, LLC

Code §§ 896, 943, 944.) The Court does not find this persuasive, as discussed below. Further, even if the Court accepts Defendants’ arguments that the negligence claim applies to the Act, the Court finds this demurrer to be procedurally improper under McMillin. First, the Court will explain the history and purposes of the Act and McMillin decision. In 2000, the California Supreme Court ruled in Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

AXIS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. ALMADEN TOWER VENTURE, LLC, ET AL.

The Court now issues its tentative ruling as 22 follows: Amended Complaint, filed on April 4, 2018, sets forth the following causes of action: 26 (1) Breach of Express Warranties; (2) Breach of Implied Warranties; (3) Violation of Statute 27 (Civil Code, § 896, et seq.); and Breach of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and 28 Restrictions. 1 Cross-defendant BrassCraft Manufacturing Company (“BMC”) has reached a settlement 2 with plaintiff Axis Homeowners Association (“Plaintiff”).

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2020

SUSAN PENA, ET AL VS EDWARD KATS, ET AL

At the time of the purchase of the property by plaintiffs, the property was defective and unfit for its intended purpose because it had been constructed in a defective manner and in violation of the standards identified in Civil Code §896. On March 20, 2018, Yuriy Matyash, ind. and dba Tin Hill Construction filed a cross-complaint against Roes for indemnity, breach of warranties, and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Feb 04, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

TRUDEAU VS. BAYVIEW BUILDERS

However, that case also involved a cause of action for rescission as well as restitution and does not address Civil Code § 896. Plaintiff does not seek relief from the seller and neither one of these cases appear to support compelling joinder of the seller under CCP § 389(a). To the extent Defendant seeks indemnity from Mitsuda the Court is inclined to agree with Plaintiff that a cross-complaint by Defendant would be a more appropriate procedural vehicle.

  • Hearing

    Jan 29, 2020

THE GLOBE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. THE GLOBE AT 2ND AND SANTA CLARA L.P., ET AL.

Further, the Court notes Civil Codesection 896 covers a multitude of defects not only in the residence but also in improvements such as driveways, landscaping, and damage to the lot, etc.” (Gillotti v. Stewart (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 875, 897.) In other words, it is not apparent the “improvements” now alleged in the negligence cause of action in the FAC are not encompassed by the Right to Repair Act.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2020

MARCUS SANFORD, ET AL. VS 730 STANLEY, ET AL.

procedural history The Sanfords filed the Complaint on May 16, 2019 alleging 5 causes of action: Violation of Civil Code § 896 (Construction Defects) Negligence Strict liability Breach of implied warranty of merchantability Breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Builders filed the present Demurrer on July 19, 2019. Sanfords filed an Opposition on January 8, 2020. Builders filed a Reply on January 14, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

ANDERSON, ETC. V. CYBERTECH CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.

Plaintiffs also allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for Violation of Civil Code § 896 against Defendant. The complaint alleges Defendant was in the business of developing and constructing homes for sale. Complaint, at ¶ 46. As Plaintiffs’ correctly point out, Defendant’s argument that he earns his living as doctor is a contention that lies outside of the allegations in the complaint or facts that can be judicially noticed.

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

RAHMANY VS. SEENO CONSTRUCTION

While defendants attach the caption page from the 2012 case, which identifies “Violation of Building Standards as Set Forth in California Civil Code § 896,” this is not determinative of the claims or issues litigated. Additionally, Civil Code section 896 includes 45 building standards, only some of which are referenced in the current case. The statute could therefore potentially give rise to many different causes of action, depending on the particular defect.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2020

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY V. OETIKER, INC.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that it is not making any claims under Civil Code section 896 or under the Act, and that its complaint clearly seeks to recovery solely for a defect in a manufactured product, and thus is excepted from the Act under Civil Code section 896(g)(3)(E).

  • Hearing

    Oct 17, 2019

RICHARD HILLENBRAND VS MAP DEVELOPMENT INC ET AL

., Off the Wall Floors, On-Deck Coatings, Stamm Painting, Tate Construction, and Westco Construction for (1) strict products liability, (2) violation of standards set forth in Civil Code 896, (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (4) negligence, and (5) breach of contract. On October 24, 2018, the Map defendants filed a cross-complaint against numerous subcontractors.

  • Hearing

    Sep 24, 2019

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AXIS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION V. ALMADEN TOWER VENTURE, LLC, ET AL.

The Second 25 Amended Complaint, filed on April 4, 2018, sets forth the following causes of action: 26 (1) Breach of Express Warranties; (2) Breach of Implied Warranties; (3) Violation of Statute 27 (Civil Code, § 896, et seq.); and (4) Breach of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and 28 TENTATIVE RULING RE: MOTION TO COMPEL JUDICIAL REFERENCE 1 Restrictions.

  • Hearing

    Aug 10, 2019

ABBINGTON OWNERS' ASSOCIATION VS. SHAPELL INDUSTRIES

Many of the issues in the demurrer concern the Right to Repair Act, codified in Civil Code §§896 – 945.5, also commonly referred to by its legislative bill, SB 800 (the “Act” or “SB 800”), is one of two statutory schemes governing California construction defect litigation. The Act defines what constitutes a construction defect in California by establishing “functionality standards,” the violation of which is actionable as a matter of law.

  • Hearing

    Jul 25, 2019

JACKSON GLEN COMMUNITY CORPORATION VS. ENCORE GLENDALE

Code §§896 & 897 et seq., (2) Fraud, (3) Negligent Misrepresentation, and (4) Breach of Fiduciary Duty. MCEC was identified as Doe 1 and amended into the action on February 05, 2019. PRESENTATION: The instant demurrer was filed on May 16, 2019, contending that the Court lacks jurisdiction over MCEC because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with filing requirements provided in Civ. Code §896 et seq. and Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jun 28, 2019

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

KEMPER INDEPENDENCE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. OETIKER INC

(Civil Code § 896(a).) The statute goes on to list requirements pertaining to windows, roofs, decks, foundation systems, hardscape, stucco, retaining walls, plumbing lines, sewer systems, showers, baths, waterproofing systems, soils, fireplaces, chimneys, and electrical and mechanical systems. (Civil Code § 896.)

  • Hearing

    May 16, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

STATE FARM GENERAL INS. CO. VS CIRCA DEVELOPMENT, INC.,ET AL

The cause of action is brought alleging that the defect at issue qualifies as an actionable defect under Civil Code section 896, and that all defendants failed to comply with provisions of Civil Code section 912. [Paras. 25, 26]. It is alleged that due to these violations, the parties are not required to comply with prelitigation procedures. [Para. 27].

  • Hearing

    Apr 26, 2019

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

JASON RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. V. MARTIN JARCHOW, ET AL.

Civil Code Section 896 states: “This title applies to original construction intended to be sold as an individual dwelling unit.” Plaintiffs’ FAC alleges that the construction defects arise out of a remodel, not original construction. Paragraph 10 of the FAC reads: “Defendant Jarchow purchased the Property in 2006 and performed a complete remodel through his company, Summerland Builders.

  • Hearing

    Apr 15, 2019

GRANDE SOUTH HOMEOWNERS VS STARLINE WINDOWS INC [E-FILE]

The complaint alleges seven causes of action for Violation of Civil Code § 896, et seq., Strict Liability, Negligence, Negligent Misrepresentation, Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability and Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness. Starline brings this motion as to the strict liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and implied warranty causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

GRANDE SOUTH HOMEOWNERS VS STARLINE WINDOWS INC [E-FILE]

The complaint alleges seven causes of action for Violation of Civil Code § 896, et seq., Strict Liability, Negligence, Negligent Misrepresentation, Breach of Express Warranty, Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability and Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness. Starline brings this motion as to the strict liability, negligence, negligent misrepresentation and implied warranty causes of action.

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

RICHARD HILLENBRAND VS MAP DEVELOPMENT INC ET AL

., Off the Wall Floors, On-Deck Coatings, Stamm Painting, Tate Construction, and Westco Construction for (1) strict products liability, (2) violation of standards set forth in Civil Code 896, (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (4) negligence, and (5) breach of contract. On October 24, 2018, the Map defendants filed a cross-complaint against numerous subcontractors for implied indemnity, contribution/equitable apportionment, and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Apr 04, 2019

BAYSIDE OWNERS ASSOCIATION VS. BOSA CALIFORNIA LLC [E-FILE]

California Civil Code section 896(g)(3)(E) provides that, "[t]his title does not apply in any action seeking recovery solely for a defect in a manufactured product located within or adjacent to a structure." Because section 896 clearly contemplates manufacturer liability for defective products, see Cal. Civ.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2019

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

ESCOTT VS WILLIAM LYON HOMES INC

Not surprisingly, therefore, the plaintiffs provided the Builder Defendants with notices of their claims that the construction of their houses violated the standards in Civil Code section 896, et seq. (¶ 14.) In short, the plaintiffs’ claims that their claims against HMI are solely for repairs are contrary to the allegations of their complaint.

  • Hearing

    Dec 27, 2018

GRANDE SOUTH HOMEOWNERS VS STARLINE WINDOWS INC [E-FILE]

Violation of Civil Code Section 896, et seq., 2. Strict Liability; 3. Negligence; 4. Negligent Misrepresentation; 5. Breach of Express Warranty; 6. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; and 7. Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness. Starline seeks summary adjudication as to all causes of action, except the cause of action for Breach of Express Warranty.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2018

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

GRANDE SOUTH HOMEOWNERS VS STARLINE WINDOWS INC [E-FILE]

Violation of Civil Code Section 896, et seq., 2. Strict Liability; 3. Negligence; 4. Negligent Misrepresentation; 5. Breach of Express Warranty; 6. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability; and 7. Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness. Starline seeks summary adjudication as to all causes of action, except the cause of action for Breach of Express Warranty.

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2018

  • Type

    Complex

  • Sub Type

    Writ

1 2 3 4     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.