Search anything: judges, parties, opposing counsel, motion types, legal issues
Randall S. Stamen
(Subscribe to View)
Track This Case
October 1, 2018
Riverside County, CA
Jul 18, 2019
Doe Vs Inland Eye Specialists Anti-Slaap Motion (Special
Solarmax Renewable Energy Provider Inc Vs Ramirez
Ejeye Vs Ocwen Loan Servicing Llc
Capers Vs Bdr Inc
Corona Vs Ford Motor Company
Martinez Vs Bmw Of North America Llc
V. Vs Riverside Community Health Foundation
Schmidt Vs Myers
Vidro Vs Us Nursing Corporation
The motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Cross-Defendant failed to negate an essential element of Cross-Complainants’ claims, specifically that of duty. Cross- Defendant failed to meet its burden of showing that it has no duty to either Plaintiff or Cross- Complainants as the admitted builder of the subject premises (UMF 18). Further, the subject claims are not barred by the statute of limitations contained in CCP § 337.1. The section does not apply to indemnity actions. (Valley Crest Landscape Development, Inc. v. Mission Pools of Escondido (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 468, 479 – 480.)
Your alert tracking was succesfully added. We will email you
when new changes related to are available.
You can see and mange all your Tracking alerts under Alert Settings
Add to your subscription and access more dockets and more documents!
Your subscription was successfully upgraded
Please wait a moment while we load this page.