Real Estate, Land Use and Environmental Law Blog - Up-to-date information on Real Estate, Land Use and Environmental Law

Standard Pacific Corporation v. Superior Court of San Bernardino (Garlow) (2009) ___ Cal. App. 4th ____ (Aug. 14, 2009, No. E046844)

By James Pugh

The Fourth District Court of Appeal recently held that construction-defect plaintiffs must provide developers with notice and an opportunity to repair before filing suit. This holding in Standard Pacific Corporation v. Superior Court of San Bernardino (Garlow) confirms the procedural requirement of Senate Bill 800, which is also known as the “Fix It Law.”

The Fifth Day, LLC v. James P. Bolotin, et al., ___ Cal.App.4th ___(March 27, 2009, No KC047712)

By Jon E. Maki & Bram Hanono

The California Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District determined that an entity which provided construction management services to a private owner developing commercial real property was not required to be licensed as a contractor pursuant to the Contractors' State License Law ("CSLL") (opinion by Acting Presiding Justice Armstrong, concurrence by Justice Krieger). In a lengthy dissent, Justice Mosk disagreed, highlighting that the intent of the CSLL is to protect consumers from unqualified and unlicensed contractors and predicted that the decision on a case of first impression creates a loophole in the license requirements by allowing unlicensed contractors to call themselves "construction managers."

Landale-Cameron Court, Inc. v. Ahonen (Oct. 10, 2007, B190309 [2^nd Dist., Div. 2]), ___ Cal. App. 4th ____; http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/opinions

By Thomas B. Snyder and Andriana Ledesma

In Landale?Cameron, the homeowner's association of a condominium complex ("HOA"), discovered various water leaks to the building and subsequently sued the builder-developers Arnold and Helen Kaufman ("Kaufman") and Petri Ahonen dba Riteway Decking and Flooring ("Riteway") for negligence and contract causes of action.  Riteway moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the complaint was barred because it was filed after the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations for actions involving injury to real property under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 338.

Arntz Builders v. Superior Court (County of Contra Costa) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1195 (1st Dist. Sep. 30, 2004)

Provision in construction contract between Arntz and County purportedly waiving the change of venue provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section 394 (providing that any party may move for a change of venue where a county brings an action within that county against a resident of another county) is void because a party "may not waive the benefits of a statute enacted primarily for a public purpose." The public purpose underlying Section 394 "is to guard against local prejudices which sometimes exist in favor of litigants within a county as against those from without."