BACKGROUND 

This case arises from a dispute between an architect and its client.  Plaintiff Doheny Plaza Association is a condominium corporation for the property located at 818 North Doheny Drive, West Hollywood, California 90069 (the “Property”), which consists of 90 units.  (Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) No. 1.)  Plaintiff and Defendant Poon Design Inc. entered into a contract for consulting services wherein Defendant was to be the architect on a project at the Property.  (UMF No. 2.)  Defendant was to renovate and repair various common areas at the Property.   (UMF No. 3.)  The project was completed in April 2020.  (UMF No. 4.)   

On October 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed the complaint in the instant action, alleging claims for breach of contract and negligence.  The entirety of Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is based on Defendant’s alleged negligent plans and drawings.  (UMF No. 12.)  Plaintiff admits that Defendant’s alleged breach of contract occurred on June 13, 2018, when Plaintiff received the allegedly negligent plans and drawing.  (UMF No. 23.)  As to Plaintiff’s negligence claim, Plaintiff alleges it discovered Defendant’s errors, omissions, and negligent work product, and the losses and damages it allegedly suffered as a result of Defendant’s negligence, when the design and construction of the project was completed in April 2020.  (UMF Nos. 26-27.) 

This hearing is on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment or in the alternative for summary adjudication.  Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claims for breach of contract and negligence are time-barred.  While Plaintiff has filed an opposing memorandum of points and authorities, it has not filed an opposition to the separate statement.   

LEGAL STANDARD     

The function of a motion for summary judgment or adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party cannot show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and to enable an order of summary dismissal without the need for trial.  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Ritchfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)  Code Civ. Proc. §437c(c) “requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Minor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)  “The function of the pleadings in a motion for summary judgment is to delimit the scope of the issues; the function of the affidavits or declarations is to disclose whether there is any triable issue of fact within the issues delimited by the pleadings.”  (Juge v. County of Sacramento (1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 59, 67).   

As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof by presenting facts to negate an essential element or to establish a defense.  (Code Civ. Proc. §437c(p)(2); Scalf v. D.B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1520.)  Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.”  (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)  

Once the defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto.  To establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must produce substantial responsive evidence.  (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)  

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 

  Defendant requests judicial notice of the complaint and answer filed in this action.  The request is¿denied.  It is not necessary to ask the court to take¿judicial notice of materials previously filed in the case.  All that is necessary is to call the court’s attention to such papers. (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2021) ¶ 9.53.1a.)   

DISCUSSION 

 Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is time-barred.  The Court agrees. 

The limitations period for a breach of contract claim is four years.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 337.)  The period begins to run at the time that a party breaches the contract.  (Piedmont Capital Management, LLC v. McElfish (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 961, 968.) Here, Plaintiff has expressly admitted that as of June 13, 2018, Defendant had breached the contract.  (UMF No. 23.)  As such, the statute of limitations began to run on Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim on June 13, 2018; therefore, Plaintiff was required to file its breach of contract claim by no later than June 13, 2022.  Plaintiff did not file the Complaint until October 4, 2023, well after the four-year limitations period had already run.  As such, Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is time-barred.   

Defendant also argues Plaintiff’s claim for negligence is barred by the applicable statute of limitations.  Again, the Court agrees. 

Plaintiff’s second cause of action is labeled only “negligence;” however, it is clear that it is a cause of action for professional negligence because the Complaint alleges Defendant owed Plaintiff a legal duty to perform the agreed upon work in a manner required of a competent licensed architect.  (Compl. ¶ 17.)  The statute of limitations for a professional negligence claim is two years.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 339(1); Roger E. Smith v. Shn Consulting Eng’rs & Geologists (2001) 89 Cal. App. 4th 638, 650 (two year limitations period applies to negligence claim against architect.)   

A cause of action for professional negligence accrues when the plaintiff “(1) sustains damage and (2) discovers, or should discover, the negligence.”  (Id. at 650-651.)  Plaintiff alleges that it discovered Defendant’s errors, omissions, and negligent work product, including the losses and/or damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff, when the design and construction of the project was completed in April 2020.  (UMF Nos. 26-27.)  Accordingly, the two-year statute of limitations accrued in April 2020 and expired in April 2022.  Plaintiff did not file its Complaint until October 4, 2023.  As a result, Plaintiff’s cause of action for negligence is also barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Defendant Poon Design, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment.   

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 17, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr.  

Judge of the Superior Court