If the builder drags its feet in a way that exacerbates damage, the Act protects the homeowner. (See § 944 [builder is liable for "the reasonable cost of repairing and rectifying any damages resulting from the failure of the home to meet the standards"]; KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1478, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 ( KB Home ) ["Since the builder is required to compensate the homeowner for consequential damages, including the cost of repair of actual property damage caused by a construction defect, any delay up to the statutory maximum risks increasing the builder's liability."].)Defects that trigger sudden ongoing, escalating damage present a more difficult problem. The Act does not expressly address how its operation might change in such unusual circumstances.

The Right to Repair Act “establishes a prelitigation dispute resolution process that affords builders notice of alleged construction defects and the opportunity to cure such defects, while granting homeowners the right to sue for deficiencies even in the absence of property damage or personal injury.” (McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 241, 247; accord, KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1478 [the Right to Repair Act provides builders with the “statutory right to have timely notice of a defect, to inspect the property, to offer to repair the defect and compensate the homeowner”].) A court action may only be maintained against the builder after the homeowner complies with the statute's prelitigation requirements.

“When the statutory framework is, overall, chronological, courts will construe the timing of particular acts in relation to other acts according to their location within the statute; that is, actions described in the statute occur in the order they appear in the text.” (Lewis, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1139-1140, review granted, citing KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1477 [statutory scheme's sequential structure supports interpretation that acts required by the statute occur in the same sequence].) Applying this principle to section 1170.95, subdivision (c), the trial court must first determine whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing that he or she “falls within the provisions” of the statute before appointing counsel, receiving briefs and then determining whether the petitioner has made “a prima facie showing that he or she is entitled to relief.”

In order to obtain Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.), effective January 1, 2019, resentencing relief, the petitioner must proceed sequentially through section 1170.95's separate steps. (People v. Lewis (2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1140 (Lewis), review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260598; see also KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1477 [sequential structure of a statutory scheme supports interpretation that acts required by the statutes occur in the same sequence].) First, a defendant must file a facially sufficient section 1170.95 petition.

"When the statutory framework is, overall, chronological, courts will construe the timing of particular acts in relation to other acts according to their location within the statute; that is, actions described in the statute occur in the order they appear in the text." (Lewis, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1139-1140, review granted, citing KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1477 [statutory scheme's sequential structure supports interpretation that acts required by the statute occur in the same sequence].) Applying this principle to section 1170.95, subdivision (c), the trial court must first determine whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing that he or she "falls within the provisions" of the statute before appointing counsel, receiving briefs, and then determining whether the petitioner has made "a prima facie showing that he or she is entitled to relief."

In order to obtain Senate Bill No. 1437 resentencing relief, the petitioner must proceed sequentially through section 1170.95's separate steps. (People v. Lewis (2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1140 (Lewis), review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260598; see also KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1477 [sequential structure of a statutory scheme supports interpretation that acts required by the statutes occur in the same sequence].) First, a defendant must file a facially sufficient section 1170.95 petition.

In order to obtain Senate Bill Number 1437 resentencing relief, the petitioner must proceed sequentially through section 1170.95's separate steps. (People v. Lewis (2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1140 (Lewis), review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260598; see also KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1477 [sequential structure of a statutory scheme supports interpretation that acts required by the statutes occur in the same sequence].) First, a defendant must file a facially sufficient section 1170.95 petition.

Section 1170.95, subdivision (c) prescribes a sequential procedure for the superior court's consideration of a petition for resentencing under the statute. ( People v. Lewis (2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1128, 1140, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 265, review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260598 ( Lewis ); People v. Verdugo (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 320, 327, 257 Cal.Rptr.3d 510, review granted Mar. 18, 2020, S260493 ( Verdugo ); see KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1477, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 [sequential structure of a statutory scheme supports interpretation that acts required by the statutes occur in the same sequence].) "The court shall review the petition and determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the petitioner falls within the provisions of this section.

"When the statutory framework is, overall, chronological, courts will construe the timing of particular acts in relation to other acts according to their location within the statute; that is, actions described in the statute occur in the order they appear in the text." (Lewis, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1139-1140, rev. granted, citing KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1477 [statutory scheme's sequential structure supports interpretation that acts required by the statute occur in the same sequence].) Applying this principle to section 1170.95, subdivision (c), the trial court must first determine whether a petitioner has made a prima facie showing that he or she "falls within the provisions" of the statute before appointing counsel, receiving briefs and then determining whether the petitioner has made "a prima facie showing that he or she is entitled to relief."

( FilmOn.com Inc. v. DoubleVerify Inc. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 133, 144, 246 Cal.Rptr.3d 591, 439 P.3d 1156 ["[W]e interpret statutory language within its context, and in light of its structure, analogous provisions, and any other appropriate indicia of its purpose."]; see KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. Superior Court (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1471, 1477, 168 Cal.Rptr.3d 142 [interpreting statute to require notice to a builder before repairs are made, noting "sequential procedure" set forth in statute].) Further, the legislative history accompanying Assembly Bill No. 1812 describes the amendment of section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), as "authoriz[ing] the courts to consider specific post-conviction factors when resentencing a defendant."