California Court of Appeal

In a negligence and breach of implied warranty action, trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds is affirmed where: 1) defendant's passive ownership of the property prior to sale did not preclude it from asserting the limitation defense as it fell into the class of developers protected by the statute; and 2) the facts of the case defeated plaintiff's claim that defendants should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense.

Appellate Information

• Decided 02/20/2009
• Published 02/20/2009

Judges

• POLLAK, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Anderlini, Finkelstein, Emerick & Smoot, Merrill G. Emerick, San Mateo, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.


• For Appellees:
  
• W. Eric Blumhardt, Archer Norris, Allan L. Isbell, Walnut Creek, CA, Ron U. Lunski, Poway, CA, Lorber Greenfield & Polito, LLP, for Defendant and Respondent.