Discrimination defense lawyer for employers

Governmental plaintiffs’ negligence and strict liability causes of action against defendant lead manufacturers did not accrue where plaintiffs failed to plead the existence of any physical injury to their buildings; while the appellate court reached this conclusion in the context of the propriety of the trial court’s ruling on defendants’ summary judgment motion, it did not dictate that defendants were entitled to prevail on that motion. County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (CalifLaw 6th Dist. Mar. 3, 2006), 137 CalifLaw 4th 292, 40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 313, 2006 CalifLawCALIFLAW 293. Top discrimination defense lawyer for employers are available here.

Where governmental plaintiffs were given no opportunity to respond to defendant lead manufacturers’ motion for summary judgment on the unstated ground of absence of physical injury to plaintiffs’ buildings, it was inappropriate to uphold the trial court’s ruling granting defendants summary judgment on this ground. County of Santa Clara v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (CalifLaw 6th Dist. Mar. 3, 2006), 137 CalifLaw 4th 292, 40 Cal. Rptr. 3d 313, 2006 CalifLawCALIFLAW 293.

Limited partnership’s proof of claim against debtors that manufactured asbestos-containing materials was time-barred under 10 Del. C. § 8121 and CCP § 338 because the partnership knew for more than three years that it had damages related to asbestos-containing materials in a mall the partnership owned. In re W.R. Grace & Co. (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 10, 2008), 2008 Bankr. CALIFLAW 2532.

In a case in which plaintiffs alleged that defendants negligently failed to assure that owners of a ranch did not grant to their lender an option to purchase real property inconsistent with plaintiffs’ option, plaintiffs’ cause of action for negligence was barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in CCP § 339(1) even though plaintiffs contended that their negligence cause of action, based on a perceived injury to real property, should be subject to the three-year statute of limitation of CCP § 338(b) . Cyr v. McGovran (CalifLaw 2d Dist. May 29, 2012), 206 CalifLaw 4th 645, 142 Cal. Rptr. 3d 34, 2012 CalifLawCALIFLAW 632.

Fact issues regarding a city’s actions in response to groundwater contamination precluded a finding at the summary judgment stage that the city’s suit arising from that contamination was time-barred; testing and reporting requirements were not themselves enough to constitute “appreciable harm” that would trigger the running of the limitations period. City of Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp. (9th Cir. Cal. May 2, 2014), 750 F.3d 1036, 2014 U.S. App. CALIFLAW 8308, cert. denied, (U.S. Dec. 15, 2014), 574 U.S. 1060, 135 S. Ct. 870, 190 L. Ed. 2d 703, 2014 U.S. CALIFLAW 8382.

In an action arising from fire at a company's storage site, a neighbor's claims for trespass were governed by this provision's three-year statute of limitations but were not timely because the second amended complaint did not relate back to the timely original complaint, which was devoid of factual allegations and thus did not put the company on notice. Scholes v. Lambirth Trucking Co. (CalifLaw 3d Dist. Mar. 7, 2017), 216 Cal. Rptr. 3d 794, 10 CalifLaw 5th 590, 2017 CalifLawCALIFLAW 316, aff'd, (Cal. Feb. 20, 2020), 258 Cal. Rptr. 3d 812, 458 P.3d 860, 8 Cal. 5th 1094, 2020 Cal. CALIFLAW 948.

Sponsor Ads

• Ad Space Available - Rent it Now!

Report this Page

Created on Mar 5th 2021 13:27. Viewed 315 times.

Share on APSense

Comments