Gryczman

Gryczman v. 4550 Pico Partners, Ltd.

Good Law
107 Cal. App. 4th 1·131 Cal. Rptr. 2d 680·2003 Cal. App. LEXIS 410·2003 Daily Journal DAR 2995·2003 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2391
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 17, 2003B155539California1,676 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

Plaintiff Steve Gryczman alleges defendant 4550 Pico Partners, Ltd. (Pico) conveyed certain real property to a second defendant, Kital-Pico, LCC., without affording him notice and opportunity to exercise his right of first refusal as required by a contract between him and Pico. The trial court dismissed the action on the ground it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Finding this is an appropriate case to apply the delayed discovery rule, and triable issues of fact exist as to whether plaintiff exercised due diligence in discovering the breach of contract, we reverse.

Facts and Proceedings Below

The facts with respect to the statute of limitations issue are undisputed.

Pico entered into a written contract with plaintiff’s assignor, Builder’s Depot, Inc., giving Builder’s Depot the right of first refusal to purchase certain real property owned by Pico on the same terms contained in any bona fide offer from a third party which Pico was willing to accept. Builder’s Depot assigned this contract to plaintiff.

Under the contract, plaintiff was entitled to written notice from Pico “[u]pon Pico’s receipt of a bona fide offer . . . from any third party to…

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.