Darling v. Superior Court
149 Cal. Rptr. 3d 331
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Petitioners own 86 SB 800 homes in Fairfield and seek to stay a defect suit under Civ. Code 930.1.
- SB 800 prelitigation procedure includes notices under 910 and document provisions under 912; noncompliance allows a stay or filing without stay.
- Petitioners served a 912(a) document request on Western Pacific on Feb 24, 2011; Western Pacific argued documents premature before notice of claim.
- Trial court stayed the action pending completion of prelitigation; court held 912(a) obligations arise only after service of a notice of claim.
- Petitioners argued 912(a) documents could be compelled before a notice; court rejected this, citing statutory scheme and purpose.
- Supreme Court denied petition for review; legislative history cited in analysis that documents provision follows notice of claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice of claim is required before 912(a) documents. | Petitioners: 912(a) documents may be sought before claim notice. | Western Pacific: 912(a) applies after prelitigation is triggered by 910(a) notice. | Notice of claim required to trigger 912(a) duties. |
Key Cases Cited
- Standard Pacific Corp. v. Superior Court, 176 Cal.App.4th 828 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (homeowner burden to prove prelitigation obligation applies)
- Baeza v. Superior Court, 201 Cal.App.4th 1214 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (section 912 disclosures are part of Chapter 4 prelitigation; cannot be independent of procedure)