We are checking for the latest updates in this case. We will email you when the process is complete.

Frame, Roland Martin Et Al Vs Perfection Pools And Spas, Inc Et Al

Case Last Refreshed: 4 months ago

Frame, Donna, Frame, Roland Martin, filed a(n) Breach of Contract - Commercial case represented by Wattenberg, Stephan R, against Old Republic Surety Company, Perfection Pools And Spas, Inc, represented by Sims, Bobby Dale, Jr., Sosa, Carlos Eduardo, in the jurisdiction of Butte County. This case was filed in Butte County Superior Courts with Stephen E. Benson presiding.

Case Details for Frame, Donna v. Old Republic Surety Company , et al.

Judge

Stephen E. Benson

Time To Management

181 days

Filing Date

March 12, 2020

Category

(06) Unlimited Breach Of Contract/Warranty

Time To Trial

585 days

Last Refreshed

December 09, 2023

Practice Area

Commercial

Filing Location

Butte County, CA

Matter Type

Breach of Contract

Case Complaint Summary

This complaint is a legal document filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Butte. The plaintiffs, Roland Martin Frame and Donna Frame, are suing the defendants, Perfection Pools and Spas, Inc. and Old Republic Surety Company, for breach ...

Parties for Frame, Donna v. Old Republic Surety Company , et al.

Plaintiffs

Frame, Donna

Frame, Roland Martin

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Wattenberg, Stephan R

Defendants

Old Republic Surety Company

Perfection Pools And Spas, Inc

Attorneys for Defendants

Sims, Bobby Dale, Jr.

Sosa, Carlos Eduardo

Case Documents for Frame, Donna v. Old Republic Surety Company , et al.

Case Management Statement

Date: August 20, 2020

Case Management Statement

Date: August 14, 2020

Case Management Conference

Date: September 09, 2020

Complaint

Date: March 12, 2020

Motion - Fee

Date: December 15, 2020

Case Management Statement

Date: November 16, 2020

Case Management Statement

Date: November 18, 2020

Opposition - No Fee

Date: January 06, 2021

Reply

Date: January 20, 2021

Declaration

Date: January 06, 2021

Notice of Reassignment

Date: January 04, 2021

Motion hearings - Predispo

Date: January 27, 2021

Motion - Fee

Date: December 22, 2020

Case Management Conference

Date: December 09, 2020

Declaration

Date: December 22, 2020

Opposition - No Fee

Date: January 12, 2021

Motion hearings - Predispo

Date: January 20, 2021

Declaration

Date: December 15, 2020

Case Events for Frame, Donna v. Old Republic Surety Company , et al.

Type Description
Docket Event Civil Minutes
Court Trial
3 Day Time Estimate

Judge: Benson, Stephen E

Docket Event Civil Minutes
Trial Readiness Conference
3 Day Time Estimate

Judge: Benson, Stephen E

Tentative Ruling Defendant Perfection Pools & Spas, Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. With regard to the first cause of action for breach of contract, the Court accepts as true the allegations th...

Judge: Benson, Stephen E

Docket Event Perfection Pools & Spas, Inc's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion for Judgement
Motion hearings - Predispo
Perfection Pools & Spa, Inc's Motion for Judgment on Pleadings

Judge: Benson, Stephen E

Docket Event Tentative Ruling
Defendant Perfection Pools & Spas, Inc.'s motion for judgment on the pleadings is granted. With regard to the first cause of action for breach of contract, the Court accepts as true the allegations that the parties entered into a written agreement on January 28, 2011 (see, Paragraph BC-1), and Defendant breached the agreement on June 1, 2011 (see, Paragraph BC-2). Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 337, Plaintiffs had four years, or until June 1, 2015, to file on their claim. The Complaint, filed March 12, 2020, is therefore time-barred. With regard to the second cause of action for breach of the warranty of merchantability, the same is true. The Court accepts as true the allegation that beginning in 2011 and continuing to the present Plaintiffs complained to Defendant. The Court rejects Plaintiffs' argument that the 10-year statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 337.15 applies. Rather, section 337.15 sets the outer limit of when an action based on a latent defect may be brought. (See, i.e., Lantzy v. Centex Homes (2003) 31 Cal. 4th 363, 369-370.) Plaintiffs bear the burden of showing the pleading defects can be cured on amendment. Plaintiffs do not address leave to amend. Therefore, Defendant's motion is granted without leave to amend. Defendant shall prepare the form of Order.
Docket Event Perfection Pools & Spas, Inc's Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion for Judgement on Pleadings
Reply
Docket Event Declaration of Claire E. Greene in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Verified Responses
Motion hearings - Predispo
Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant's Verified Responses; for Monetary Sanctions

Judge: Benson, Stephen E

Docket Event Request for Dismissal - Entered in Part as to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Verified Responses Only
Request for Dismissal - Entered in Part
Docket Event Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion for Judgment of the Pleadings
Opposition - No Fee
Docket Event Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Verified Responses
Opposition - No Fee
See all events