Baeza v. Superior Court
201 Cal. App. 4th 1214
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Petitioners own 32 homes purchased from Castle & Cooke and sue for construction defects.
- Castle & Cooke moves to compel compliance with statutory and contractual nonadversarial prelitigation procedures.
- Statutory procedures require notice, repair opportunity, mediation; contractual provisions require notice, repair, then mediation/arbitration.
- Trial court partially grants relief: contractual prelitigation steps for some developments; mediation/arbitration required for others; stays issued.
- Petitioners argue they were released from procedures due to Castle & Cooke’s alleged disclosure failures and that some contract damages limits are unlawful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is writ review appropriate here? | Writ needed due to lack of adequate remedy and first-impression issues. | Issues are reviewable on writ; no plain alternative remedy. | Writ review appropriate. |
| Does opting out of Chapter 4 strip 912 disclosures from applicability? | Castle & Cooke failed to comply with 912, releasing petitioners. | Opting for contractual procedures excludes Chapter 4 and 912. | Opting out excludes 912; disclosures not binding. |
| Are 912 disclosures mandatory if builder elects contractual procedures? | Disclosures essential to binding Chapter 4 procedures. | Disclosures not required where contractual procedures chosen. | 912 disclosures not required under contractual procedures. |
| Do damages limitations invalidate the contract or procedures? | Damages cap violates §901/§944 and voids the contract. | Damages cap severable; contracts still enforceable for notice/repair. | Damages provisions severable; contractual notice/repair enforced. |
Key Cases Cited
- Half Moon Bay v. Superior Court, 106 Cal.App.4th 795 (2003) (writ review criteria and adequacy of appellate remedies)
- Hogya v. Superior Court, 75 Cal.App.3d 122 (1977) (adequacy of remedy when appealing is not direct)
- Valley Bank of Nevada v. Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 652 (1975) (special-creason writ review discretion)
- Standard Pacific Corp. v. Superior Court, 176 Cal.App.4th 828 (2009) (mandatory nature of section 912 disclosures; context)
- Anders v. Superior Court, 192 Cal.App.4th 579 (2011) (Right to Repair Act construction; statutory interpretation)
- Marathon Entertainment, Inc. v. Blasi, 42 Cal.4th 974 (2008) (severability and contract salvage when part is unlawful)
- Armendariz v. Foundation Health Psychcare Services, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 83 (2000) (liberal severability doctrine)