arrow left
arrow right
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview
  • BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC et al CONSTRUCTION document preview 
						
                                
Preview

                                UNO

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Dec-19-2014 3:44 pm

Case Number: CGC-08-478453
Filing Date: Dec-19-2014 3:43
Filed by: DANIAL LEMIRE
Juke Box: 001 Image: 04730032
ORDER

BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION VS. CATELLUS THIRD
AND KING LLC et al

001004730032

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.F

San Francisco Coun a
DEC 19 2014

CLERI-OF HE COURT
BY:

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

BEACON RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY Case No. CGC — 08-478453
ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,
ORDER RE OSC WHY THE COURT
vs. SHOULD NOT EXTEND OCTOBER 1

CATELLUS THIRD AND KING LLC, ET | 24 ORDER RE KRUSTTO OTHER

AL..
Defendants.

On October 1, 2014, I issued an order granting Defendant Skidmore, Owings & Merrill
LLP’s motion to strike! allegations in the Third Amended Complaint concerning solar heat gain.
Oct. 1, 2014 Order, 1,9. I relied on Krusi v. S.J. Amoroso Construction Co., 81 Cal.App.4th
995, 1005-06 (2000). Thereafter, I set a briefing schedule to afford the parties an opportunity to
show cause why the Krusi ruling should not apply to all parties. Nov. 10, 2014 Order, 1.
Plaintiff has submitted a brief arguing that the Krusi ruling should not be extended to other
defendants. Defendant Mission Place took the same position. Numerous defendants submitted
a joint brief contending that the Krusi ruling should be extended to them. | heard argument

December 18, 2014.

' Skidmore’s motion was joined by HKS Architects. Both Skidmore and HKS are architects.As I informed the parties on the record, I believe that, on the merits, the ruling probably
should be extended to all defendants; the parties do not appear to be differently situated.

But my original ruling is currently on review before the Court of Appeal. Briefing on the
writ was scheduled to be completed on December 12, 2014. There are thus prudential concerns
that weigh in favor in waiting for that ruling.

Mission Place and plaintiff are concerned that an order extending the Krusi ruling to
additional defendants would be inconsistent with a ruling by the Court of Appeal reversing the
Krusi ruling. Jd.; Plaintiff's Brief, 2.2 Specifically, plaintiff is concerned that an additional
order from me will require plaintiff to file a second writ petition. If this were to be consolidated
with pending writ proceedings, this might actually delay a ruling from the appellate court. It is
also possible that, if the Court of Appeal issues an opinion, its rationale might suggest treating
the various defendants differently.

Given the briefing schedule, it is wise to await word from the Court of Appeal. The OSC
is discharged without prejudice. Any party may seek a ruling on the merits of the now fully
briefed issue, setting it down for oral argument, on the earlier of (1) a decision from the Court of
Appeal or (2) such time as pretrial preparation including the need to timely complete discovery

requires a trial court determination.

tee
Dated: December 19, 2014 {

Curtis E.A. Karnow
Judge Of The Superior Court

? The parties do not invoke C.C.P. § 916, pursuant to which the appeal stays trial court proceedings to enforce the
appealed order or proceedings that affect the effectiveness of the appeal. See Varian Medical Sys., Inc. v. Delfino,
35 Cal.4th 180, 189-90 (2005).CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE
(CCP 1010.6(6) & CRC 2.260(g))

I, DANIAL LEMIRE, a Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court of the County of San
Francisco, certify that I am not a party to the within action.

On December 19, 2014, I electronically served THE ATTACHED ORDER via File &
ServeXpress on the recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the File &

ServeXpress website.

Dated: December 19, 2014

DANIAL LEMIRE, Deputy Clerk

CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE