Darling

Darling v. Superior Court

Good Law
149 Cal. Rptr. 3d 331·2012 Cal. App. LEXIS 1189·211 Cal. App. 4th 69
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 16, 2012No. A135747California5,554 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Needham, J.

Petitioners seek writ relief from a trial court order staying their construction defect litigation pursuant to Civil Code section 930. 1 The court imposed the order because petitioners have not completed the statutory prelitigation procedure of section 910 et seq. Petitioners argued that real parties in interest could not obtain the stay because they had failed to respond to petitioners’ request for documents (§ 912, subd. (a)), while real parties in interest urged—and the trial court found—that no response to the document request was necessary since petitioners had not served their notice of a claim (§ 910).

We are therefore presented with a question of first impression: must homeowners serve notice of a construction defect claim under section 910, subdivision (a) for a builder to be obligated to respond to their request for documents under section 912, subdivision (a)?

Based on the language of the statute and the statutory scheme, as well as the statutory purpose and relevant legislative history, we conclude that a homeowner must serve notice of a construction defect claim under section 910, subdivision (a) to commence the statutory prelitigation procedure, and until…

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.