Newport Beach
Newport Beach
Los Angeles
Las Vegas
San Diego
Oakland
Phoenix
Reno
Riverside
Denver
North San Diego
(949)221-1000 (949)221-1001 20320 S.W. Birch Street Second Floor, Newport Beach CA 92660
(818)712-9800 (818)712-9900 21215 Burbank Blvd. Suite 500, Woodland Hills CA 91367
(702)258-6665 (702)258-6662 1160 N Town Center Dr Suite 250, Las Vegas NV 89144
(619)236-0048 (619)236-0047 501 West Broadway Suite 1700, San Diego CA 92101
(510)540-4881 (510)540-4889 300 Frank H Ogawa Plaza Suite 355, Oakland CA 94612
(602)274-1204 (602)274-1205 8950 South 52nd St Suite 201, Tempe AZ 85284
(775)440-2389 (775) 440-2390 50 West Liberty Suite 1090, Reno NV 89501
(951)276-9020 (951)276-9022 5225 Canyon Crest Dr. Suite 71-363, Riverside CA 92507
(720) 779-2500 (303)256-6205 1675 Broadway, Suite 1850, Denver CO 80202
(760)557-2940 (619)389-2993 760 Garden View Ct. Unit #100 Encinitas, CA 92024

Tremendous Victory for BWB&O on Another Successful RRA Motion for Summary Judgment!

Congratulations to Partner Tyler D. Offenhauser and Senior Associate Kenneth L. Mariboho, II, for successfully arguing a Motion for Summary Judgment which extricated their client, a General Contractor, from a $2.8 Million Construction Defect lawsuit.

In this matter, Plaintiff hired a General Contractor to build a 9,000+ square foot, hillside mansion in Malibu, California, that was for his own personal use. Construction of this palatial estate was completed in 2008 when Plaintiff noticed signs of water intrusion. Plaintiff filed suit under the Right to Repair Act (“RRA”) for construction defects prior to the expiration of the 10 year Statute of Repose. Based on Plaintiff’s admissions, we established that his common law construction defect claims had expired (under common law, owners have three years from discovery of latent defects to file tort related claims, and four years to file contract related claims). Plaintiff felt comfortable admitting his knowledge of the latent defects because the RRA does not limit the statute of limitations based on an owner’s knowledge of the defects. The RRA allows owners to bring actions up to 10 years after substantial completion of the home. Additionally, builders typically want the RRA to apply because it provides them with the opportunity to repair the defects before a complaint can be filed. Plaintiff stipulated on the record that he was litigating under the RRA and would not be amending the Complaint.

Spotting an opportunity, we prepared the Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the RRA does not apply because the undisputed material facts established that neither the subject construction agreement nor the subject home fall within the RRA. This pure legal argument was based on the statutory interpretation of the RRA and had not been tested in the courts. We successfully argued that the RRA does not apply to this case and the Court agreed. The Court found:

  1. The RRA did not apply to the construction of Plaintiff’s home;
  2. No “Purchase Agreement” was entered into under Civil Code §938;
  3. Defendant is not a “builder” under the RRA, (Civil Code §911); and,
  4. Plaintiff cannot amend his Complaint as he elected to proceed under the RRA.

Judgment was entered in favor of our client and against Plaintiff, and our client is now entitled to costs!  BWB&O’s client is ecstatic about the result and our team’s handling of the matter.