Structural Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. City of Orange

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 1132·40 Cal. App. 4th 459·46 Cal. Rptr. 2d 867·95 Daily Journal DAR 15368·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8899
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 20, 1995G015019California2,850 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sonenshine, J.

This is the second appeal arising out of litigation between Structural Steel Fabricators, Inc. (Structural) and the City of Orange. In the first, Structural Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. City of Orange (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1206 [ 286 Cal.Rptr. 24 ], we reversed a summary judgment in favor of the city on its Civil Code section 3210 statute of limitations defense to Structural’s action to enforce a stop notice. We found there was a triable issue of fact whether Structural could rely on an estoppel theory to extend the time for filing its action. In a footnote, we declined “[to] reach Structural’s alternative argument that the doctrine of equitable tolling is applicable.” (Structural Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. City of Orange, supra, 234 Cal.App.3d at p. 1212, fn. 10 .) However, we noted such a position might have merit. (Ibid.) We remanded the case for further proceedings.

Following trial of the action, the court ruled Structural failed to prove estoppel, but found the action timely by virtue of equitable tolling of the statute of limitations while Structural pursued its claim against the general contractor and the bonding company. The city’s appeal squarely presents the…

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.