CC-California Plaza Associates v. Paller & Goldstein

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 1182·51 Cal. App. 4th 1042·59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 382·96 Daily Journal DAR 15261·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9294
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 19, 1996A071355California4,055 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haerle, J.

I. Introduction

These are two appeals from litigation involving alleged defective construction on a Walnut Creek office building. In one appeal, the owner of the building and the plaintiff below, CC-Califomia Plaza Associates (Cal Plaza), appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court granted a nonsuit against it and in favor of the defendant subcontractor on the project, Paller & Goldstein (Paller). Via separate moving papers, Paller moves to dismiss that appeal as untimely. In the second appeal, Paller appeals from the trial court’s postjudgment order denying it attorneys’ fees for prevailing on its nonsuit motion. We deny the motion to dismiss and reverse the judgment. We do not, therefore, reach the issue presented by Paller’s cross-appeal.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

These appeals arise out of the construction of the California Plaza office building in Walnut Creek. In September 1983, Dillingham Construction N.A., Inc. (Dillingham) entered into a contract with Cal Plaza, the building owner, to construct a 10-story office building on North California Boulevard in Walnut Creek. The overall contract price was in excess of $26 million.

After…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.