Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 20STCV49233, Date: 2023-05-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49233    Hearing Date: November 3, 2023    Dept: 39

Alexander Moradi v. Lyons Development, Inc., et al.
Case No. 20STCV49233

Demurrer

            Plaintiff Alexander Moradi, individually and as trustee of the Alexander Moradi Trust (“Plaintiff”) filed this construction defect action against numerous defendants, including El Verde Terrazzo, Inc. (“Defendant”).  Now, Defendant demurs, arguing that the claims are time-barred by the statute of repose.

An action for property damage based on latent defects in the planning or construction of improvements to real property must commence within ten years of substantial completion.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 337.15.)  “The date of substantial completion shall relate specifically to the performance or furnishing design, specifications, surveying, planning, supervision, testing, observation of construction or construction services by each profession or trade rendering services to the improvement.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 337.15, subd. (g).)  “As used in section 337.15 ‘an improvement’ is in the singular and refers separately to each of the individual changes or additions to real property that qualifies as an ‘improvement.’”  (Liptak v. Diane Apartments, Inc. (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 762, 771.)  Similarly, an action must be brought within three years of discovery of the alleged defects.  (See id., p. 769.) 

Defendant completed its work on or before February 16, 2012, and Plaintiff had notice of the water intrusion in late 2018.  Defendant was first named as a defendant in the second amended complaint, which was filed on December 1, 2022.  However, Plaintiff filed the original complaint on December 24, 2020, and named Doe defendants.  Therefore, Plaintiff’s subsequent amendment relates back to the date of the filing of the original complaint.  “[A]n amended complaint relates back to the filing of the original complaint . . . so long as recovery is sought in both pleadings on the same general set of facts.”  (Smeltzley v. Nicholson Mfg. Co. (1977) 18 Cal.3d 932, 935.)  The original complaint and first amended complaint were filed within ten years of Defendant having completed its work, and within three years of Plaintiff having discovered the defects.

Defendant argues that the relation-back doctrine does not apply because Plaintiff named Defendant as a new defendant in the second amended complaint rather than filing a Doe amendment.  This is a distinction without a difference.  It matters not whether Plaintiff named Defendant in the second amended complaint or whether Plaintiff filed the second amended complaint omitting Defendant and filed a separate Doe amendment on the same date.  There is a strong policy in favor of litigating cases on their merits, and California courts permit liberal amendment to the pleadings to name previously unknown defendants.  The dispositive issue is whether the plaintiff named Doe defendants in the prior complaints; whether the plaintiff was truly ignorant of the identity of the defendant when the prior complaints were filed; and whether the plaintiff named the defendant within the requisite time period.  Defendant argues that the prior complaints do not contain sufficient factual allegations concerning the flooring.  The Court disagrees, as California has a notice-pleading standard, and the prior complaints sufficiently allege construction defects.  This is sufficient.

Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

1.         Defendant El Verde Terrazo’s demurer is overruled.

2.         Defendant El Verde Terrazo shall file an answer within twenty (20) days.

3.         Plaintiff’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.