Valenzuela v. Superior Court

3 Citing cases

  1. EL Escorial Owners' Assn. v. DLC Plastering, Inc.

    154 Cal.App.4th 1337 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 112 times
    Affirming the trial court's reduction of a fee request where, among other things, the trial court found the rates sought were twice the rates billed to the insurance company

    Nor was this notice to the homeowners about hidden defects. ( Valenzuela v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1503 [ 5 Cal.Rptr.2d 186].) A case from another jurisdiction reminds us that "[s]tructural quality . . . is nearly impossible to determine by inspection after the house is built, since many of the most important elements . . . are hidden from view."

  2. Waterfront Cmty. Ass'n v. PLC Waterfront LLC

    No. G054235 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 7, 2018)

    The Association relies on two cases to support its assertion that the five months defendants' representatives controlled the Association's board upon its initial formation, before new homeowner representatives were elected, necessarily tolls the statute of limitations. (See El Escorial Owners' Assn. v. DLC Plastering, Inc. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 1337 (El Escorial); Valenzuela v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1499 (Valenzuela).) Even leaving aside that El Escorial was not "[e]xisting . . . decisional law" (ยง 941, subd. (e)) at the time the RRA took effect in 2003, these cases do not support the Association's categorical tolling claim when viewed in light of the RRA's terms.

  3. DeBert v. San Lorenzo Valley Water District

    No. H041482 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2015)

    The rational underlying that rule is that the current owner can sue the prior owner for concealing the defects. (Valenzuela v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1503.) "A plaintiff whose complaint shows on its face that his or her claim would be barred by the applicable orthodox statute of limitations, and who intends to rely on the discovery rule to toll the orthodox limitation period, 'must specifically plead facts which show (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence. [Citations.] Mere conclusory assertions that delay in discovery was reasonable are insufficient and will not enable the complaint to withstand general demurrer.' "