Polibrid Coatings, Inc. v. Superior Court

Good Law
112 Cal. App. 4th 920·6 Cal. Rptr. 3d 7
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 21, 2003G032459California1,224 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sills, J.

I

SSC Construction contracted with a water authority to build a water reclamation plant. It subcontracted with a painter, KNK Painting, to do the paint and waterproofing work. (Wastewater is apparently highly corrosive, so the interior coating of a tank must be good.) In October 2001 SSC sued KNK Painting for defective and dilatory work on the reclamation project.

More than 14 months later, in January 2003, KNK Painting filed an amended cross-complaint naming Polibrid Coatings, a paint manufacturer, and Polibrid’s distributor Carboline, as cross-defendants for equitable indemnity. The theory was that they had supplied defective paint for the project. Polibrid was served in mid-January 2003. That meant it was brought into the case more than one year and two months after the complaint was filed.

Polibrid filed its answer in late March 2003. At that point trial was set for June 30, 2003.

In early May 2003, Polibrid filed an ex parte motion to speed up the hearing on a motion to continue the trial (and push back the discovery cut-off dates). It succeeded in having the motion to continue set for May 30, 2003. By oral argument on that date, Polibrid’s counsel had gained…

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.