Justia California Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

In 2004, Berkeley issued a use permit for construction of a building with 51 residential rental units and ground floor commercial space. Permit condition 10 provides: “Before submission for building permit, the applicant shall submit floor plans and schedules … showing the location of each inclusionary unit and the sales or rental prices…. and that the unit rent or sales price complies with Chapter 23C.12” (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance). The Ordinance was designed to comply with Government Code section 65580, requiring a general plan to contain a housing element stating how the local agency will accommodate its share of regional need for affordable housing. The ordinance requires that 20 percent of all newly constructed residential units be reserved for households with below-median incomes and rented at below-market prices. The development took more than seven years. The city sought a declaration that the condition was valid, conceding that the ordinance has been preempted by the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civ. Code, 1954.50), but arguing that it may enforce the condition, the validity of which was not previously challenged. The court of appeal affirmed judgment in favor of the city. View "City of Berkeley v. 1080 Delaware, LLC" on Justia Law

Lydig Construction was the general contractor on a large public works project. Martinez Steel was the original steel supply subcontractor on the project. Lydig sued Martinez for additional costs Lydig incurred because Martinez failed to timely supply steel for the project; Lydig, with the public agency's approval, had been required to replace Martinez as the steel supplier. Lydig moved for a right to attach order and a writ of attachment and presented the trial court with its business records and declarations from its employees. Martinez opposed Lydig's motion and presented declarations from one of its employees that set forth its contention Lydig owed it for, among other items, steel Martinez had delivered to the project. Martinez filed a cross-complaint in which it alleged claims that, if successful, would entirely offset Lydig's claims against it. The trial court granted Lydig's motion and issued writs of attachment in the amount of $203,315. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting Martinez's contentions that its cross-complaint, as a matter of law, prevented the trial court from issuing a writ of attachment against it and that Lydig's application for a writ of attachment was not supported by substantial evidence. View "Lydig Constr., Inc. v. Martinez Steel Corp." on Justia Law

Belasco bought a new Manhattan Beach residence in 2004 from the builder (Wells). In 2006, Belasco filed a complaint with the Contractors State License Board, alleging construction defects. Belasco and Wells settled the dispute in 2006, with Wells paying $25,000 and Belasco executing a release and a Civil Code 15241 waiver of all known or unknown claims. In 2012, Belasco sued, based on an alleged roof defect discovered in 2011. The trial court entered summary judgment, finding the action barred by the settlement. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting arguments that: the 2006 general release and waiver for patent construction defects is not a “reasonable release” of a subsequent claim for latent defects under section 929 and the Right to Repair Act (section 895); a reasonable release can only apply to a “particular violation” and not to a latent defect under section 945.5(f), and the 2006 settlement was too vague to be a valid; section 932 authorizes an action on “[s]ubsequently discovered claims of unmet standards;” public policy prohibits use of a general release and section 1542 waiver to bar a subsequent claim for latent residential construction defects; and a genuine issue of fact existed concerning fraud and negligence claims that would void the settlement under section 1668. View "Belasco v. Wells" on Justia Law

FTR has constructed buildings for public entities for 15 years. In 1999, FTR submitted the winning bid of $7.345 million to construct a District school. During construction, FTR submitted approximately 150 proposed change orders (PCO). FTR claimed some were necessary because the District’s plans were inadequate or misleading. The District denied most of the PCOs on the grounds that the work was covered under the basic contract, the amounts claimed were excessive, or that a PCO was not timely under the contract. Construction was completed in 2001. Public Contract Code 7107 allows a public entity to withhold funds due a contractor when there are liens on the property or a good faith dispute concerning whether the work was properly performed. The court of appeal held that the trial court properly assessed penalties against District because it did not timely release retained funds; properly rejected the District's action under the False Claims Act, Government Code 12650; and properly assessed prejudgment interest. The court erred in its interpretation of a contract provision imposing time limitations to submit claims for extra work as requiring a showing of prejudice and erred in awarding fees for work not solely related to FTR's section 7107 cause of action. View "FTR Int'l, Inc. v. Rio Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased a home from Laux. Almost two years later, she sued the homebuilder, Shapell for strict liability, negligence, and fraudulent concealment, claiming Shapell built the home on unstable and uncompacted “fill” soil and with an inadequate foundation, causing “substantial differential movement” and numerous defects such as cracked floors, walls, and ceilings. The court granted Shappel summary judgment as to fraudulent concealment and later and entered judgment for Shapell on the other claims, concluding plaintiff lacked standing because her claims accrued when Laux owned the home and he did not assign the claims to plaintiff. The court of appeal reversed. Construing the facts in a light most favorable to plaintiff, there is a triable issue of material fact regarding whether Shapell fraudulently concealed information about the property’s soil conditions. Plaintiff was entitled to have a jury determine the disputed factual issues of when and to whom the causes of action accrued. View "Stofer v. Shapell Indus., Inc." on Justia Law

Bellingham Marine hired Major Engineering to construct a travel lift pier at the Channel Islands Harbor. Bellingham hired Moffatt, a civil engineering firm, to prepare the plans, which required that the concrete have a specific air entrainment and that the concrete, when cured, attain a specific compressive strength. Major's contract with Bellingham provided that if the concrete failed to meet the compression strength standard, that it would be removed and replaced at Major's expense. Major hired State, which submitted a concrete mix design. Moffatt, at the request of Major, reviewed and approved the design. It was not part of Moffatt's job duties. State delivered seven truck loads of wet pre-mixed concrete. After the concrete was cast, Major's testing lab took a sample that showed the concrete had inadequate compressive strength. Major demolished and rebuilt the affected portion of the pier. It sued; State filed a cross-complaint for implied equitable indemnity and contribution, alleging that Moffatt failed to use reasonable care in reviewing and approving the mix design. The court dismissed, finding that Moffatt was not in privity of contract with Major or State and that the cross-complaint was barred by the economic loss rule. The court of appeal affirmed. View "State Ready Mix Iv. Moffatt & Nichol" on Justia Law

The School District entered into a construction contract with Amoroso. Pursuant to Public Contract Code 22300, Amoroso elected to have the retention held in an escrow account in the form of securities. The escrow agreement stated that “District shall have the right to draw upon the securities and/or withdraw amounts from the Escrow Account in event of default by Contractor as determined solely by District.” The District gave written notice of material breach on March 30, 2011, based on Amoroso’s failure to complete, timely or at all, any of the three project phases and requested that Amoroso cure by April 4. Amoroso contested the assertions of material breach by letter dated April 1. The District sent notice of termination on April 18 and filed suit. On April 28, the parties entered into an “Exit and Demobilization Agreement,” “in lieu of any final termination or statement of default under the Contract.” The District sent a letter requesting withdrawal of $3.5 million from the escrow account, attaching its attorney’s memorandum as to why withdrawal was permissible. Amoroso unsuccessfully sought an injunction. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting Amoroso’s claim that a public project owner must await judicial resolution of the underlying contract dispute before it can withdraw retention funds. View "Pittsburg Unified Sch. Dist. v. S.J. Amoroso Constr. Co., Inc." on Justia Law

The Ventura County Board planned a five-story ambulatory care clinic at the 40-acre Ventura County Medical Center. The 1993 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) stated that the building would be up to 75 feet high and included drawings that did not show building height. The Board filed a Notice of Determination (NOD) that mentioned nothing about height. Detailed plans showed the height to the roofline as 72 feet. Parapets rose to 88.5 feet. The county delayed until 2005 when Board decided to relocate the Clinic 200 feet north and 160 feet west, purportedly to reduce environmental impact and to more centrally locate the project around parking. The relocated building would be about 5 feet lower due to topography. The Board prepared an EIR "Addendum" and again filed a NOD that did not mention height. In 2007 the plans were modified to show a height of 90 feet, including parapets. In 2008, a neighbor saw an "auger rig" at the construction site and inquired. He was shocked to learn that the equipment was going to be used to construct a 90-foot high building and joined an organization that unsuccessfully sought an injunction. The court ordered preparation a supplemental EIR. Construction was completed in October 2010. The court of appeal affirmed. View "Ventura Foothill Neighbors v. Cnty. of Ventura" on Justia Law

Five Corners Rialto, LLC obtained a construction loan from Vineyard Bank to develop a 70-unit townhome project. Thomas DelPonti and David Wood, principals of Five Corners, guaranteed the loan. Five Corners contracted with general contractor Advent, Inc. to build the project in two phases. Everything went according to schedule for the first 18 months. However, when Phase I of the Project was nearly complete, the Bank stopped funding approved payment applications, preventing completion and sale of the Phase I units, which, in turn, caused Five Corners to default on the loan. The Bank reached an agreement with Five Corners, requiring Advent to finish Phase I so the units could be sold at auction, and promising to pay the subcontractors if they discounted their bills and released any liens. Advent paid the subcontractors out of its own pocket in order to keep the project lien-free, so the auction could proceed. However, the Bank foreclosed against Five Corners. Advent filed an unbonded stop notice. The Bank (through its assignee California Bank and Trust), sued Five Corners and the Guarantors under various theories for the deficiency following a Trustee’s Sale of the Deed of Trust, while Advent sued the developer and the Bank for restitution for the amounts it paid out of pocket. The cases were consolidated and tried. Advent amended its complaint to conform to proof to add causes of action for breach of the assigned contract and promissory estoppel. The trial court awarded judgment in favor of Advent on these causes of action. The court denied Advent judgment for enforcement of its stop notice claim. In the Bank’s action against the Guarantors, the court found that the Bank breached the loan contract, exonerating the Guarantors. The court awarded attorneys’ fees to Advent and the Guarantors. The Bank appealed the judgments against it; Advent appealed the portion of the judgment denying enforcement of the stop notice. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed.View "Cal. Bank & Trust v. Del Ponti" on Justia Law

This case was one of a number of cases which have, in the aftermath of the "Great Recession" that hit Riverside and San Bernadino counties particarly hard. This appeal stemmed from the construction of a Kohl’s department store in Beaumont. The developer of the store was Inland-LCG Beaumont, LLC, and the general contractor was 361 Group Construction Services, Inc. Somewhere in the process of construction, the money dried up and 361 refused to pay its subcontractors for work they had done. Those subcontractors included Cass Construction, TNT Grading Inc., Palomar Grading & Paving and R3 Contractors. These four subcontractors recorded mechanic’s liens and sued to foreclose those liens. With one exception they obtained judgments of foreclosure. The one exception was TNT, who, by the time of the trial to foreclose its mechanic’s lien, was a suspended corporation and thus unable to prosecute an action. The two owners of the property, Kohl’s and Wells Fargo, appealed the judgments obtained by the three successful subcontractors, Cass, R3 and Palomar Grading. The Court of Appeal took a "soup-to-nuts" approach in reviewing the multiple issues presented on appeal, and affirmed in all respects except to the degree that liens of Palomar Grading and Cass should include prejudgment interest. To that degree the Court reversed the judgment and remanded it with instructions to the trial court to recalculate the prejudgment interest at 7 percent. On balance, Cass and R3 were still the prevailing parties in this appeal: Of 10 issues raised, they prevailed, either singly or together, in 9. They recovered their costs on appeal from Kohl’s and Wells Fargo. For Palomar Grading, the only issue on which it has appeared in this appeal was the issue of the proper rate of prejudgment interest, and on that issue it lost. "However, it would be unfair to allow Kohl’s and Wells Fargo to recover all their appellate costs from Palomar Grading because they won on the lone prejudgment interest rate issue. Most of this appeal has concerned their unsuccessful challenges to the foreclosure judgments obtained by Cass and R3."View "Palomar Grading v. Wells Fargo" on Justia Law