Delon Hampton & Assocs. v. Superior Court of L. A. Cnty.

• Decision Date: 01 January 2014
• Docket Number: No. B252356,B252356
• Citation: 173 Cal.Rptr.3d 407,227 Cal.App.4th 250
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: DELON HAMPTON & ASSOCIATES, CHTD., Petitioner, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent; Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Real Party in Interest.

227 Cal.App.4th 250
173 Cal.Rptr.3d 407

DELON HAMPTON & ASSOCIATES, CHTD., Petitioner,
v.
The SUPERIOR COURT of Los Angeles County, Respondent;
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Real Party in Interest.

No. B252356

Court of Appeal,
Second District, Division 3, California.

Filed 6/23/2014
Certified for Partial Publication.^*

See 3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Actions, § 607.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS in mandate. Robert H. O'Brien, Judge. Petition granted. (County Super. Ct. No. BC489953)

Collins Collins Muir+Stewart, Michele L. Gamble, South Pasadena, Alexandra N. Krasovec and James C. Jardin, Walnut Creek, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

Krutcik & Georggin, James A. Krutcik, A. Nicholas Georggin and Alexandra Buechner, Mission Viejo, for Real Party in Interest.

ALDRICH, J.

[227 Cal.App.4th 252]

INTRODUCTION

In 1993, real party in interest Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) completed the rail station at 4th Street and Hill Street in Los Angeles. In 2011, Jose Madrigal fell on a stairwell at the station. Alleging that the stairwell was “too small” and that its banister was “too low,” Madrigal sued the MTA. The MTA cross-complained against, among others, petitioner Delon Hampton & Associates, CHTD (Hampton), which provided design and/or construction services at the station. Hampton demurred to the first amended cross-complaint based on Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1,¹ which contains a four-year limitations period for patent defects. The trial court overruled the demurrer. Because we conclude that the defects alleged were patent, we grant Hampton's petition for writ of mandate and direct the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend.

BACKGROUND

The rail station at 4th and Hill streets was completed in 1993. On August 15, 2011, Madrigal “ ‘fell over and/or from a stairwell’ ” at the rail station, which was a part of the development of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Metro Rail Project.

Madrigal filed a complaint on August 9, 2012 against MTA for dangerous condition of public property and statutory liability and for negligence. He alleged, “ ‘Among other defects, the banister of the stairwell was too low and the stairwell too small given the number, age, and volume of persons entering and exiting the Metro Rail station.’ ” MTA “ ‘failed to provide adequate

[227 Cal.App.4th 253]

safeguards against this known dangerous condition by, among other acts and omissions, failing to properly design, construct, supervise, inspect and repair the Premises causing the same to be defective and unsafe for its intended purposes.’ ”

MTA cross-complained against numerous entities involved in the construction of the rail station where Madrigal fell, including Hampton, which “performed design and/or construction services for construction of the Premises.” As to Hampton, the first amended cross-complaint alleged causes of action for equitable indemnity, comparative contribution, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief.²

Hampton demurred to the first amended cross-complaint on the ground that the causes of action were barred by the four-year statute of limitations in section 337.1, subdivision (a)(1), and any deficiencies in design were patent under that section.³ Hampton requested judicial notice of the March 15, 1993 notice of completion of the project.⁴

On September 11, 2013, the trial court overruled the demurrer, finding that the defect was not patent as a matter of law.⁵

DISCUSSION I. Standard of review.

To determine whether a plaintiff has properly stated a claim for relief, “our standard of review is clear: ‘ “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact

[227 Cal.App.4th 254]

or law. [Citation.] We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.” [Citation.] Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context. [Citation.] When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. [Citation.] And when it is sustained without leave to amend, we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment: if it can be, the trial court has abused its discretion and we reverse; if not, there has been no abuse of discretion and we affirm. [Citations.] The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff.’ [Citations.]” (Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 709, 45 P.3d 1171.) Our review is de novo. (Ibid.) Toward this end, we must liberally construe the complaint with a view to achieving substantial justice between the parties. (§ 452.)

II. The defects alleged are patent.

Hampton contends that the first amended cross-complaint is barred by the statute of limitations in section 337.1.⁶ We agree.

The statute of limitations in section 337.1 exists to “provide a final point of termination, to protect some groups from extended liability.” (Sevilla v. Stearns–Roger, Inc. (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 608, 611, 161 Cal.Rptr. 700.) Section 337.1, subdivision (a), therefore provides: “Except as otherwise provided in this section, no action shall be brought to recover damages from any person performing or furnishing the design, specifications, surveying, planning, supervision or observation of construction or construction of an improvement to real property more than four years after the substantial completion of such improvement for any of the following: [¶] ... [¶] (3) Injury to the person or for wrongful death arising out of any such patent deficiency.” ⁷

[227 Cal.App.4th 255]

A “ ‘patent deficiency’ means a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection.” (§ 337.1, subd. (e); see also Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 300.) A patent defect can be discovered by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, whereas a latent defect is hidden and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. (Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 123, 227 Cal.Rptr. 817, 720 P.2d 476; Wagner v. State of California (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 922, 927, 150 Cal.Rptr. 489 [“A patent defect is one which can be discovered by such an inspection as would be made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence”].) “The test to determine whether a construction defect is patent is an objective test that asks ‘whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect....’ [Citations.] This test generally presents a question of fact, unless the defect is obvious in the context of common experience; then a determination of patent defect may be made as a matter of law (including on summary judgment). [Citations.]” (Creekridge Townhome Owners Assn., Inc. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 251, 256, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 258; accord, Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 46 Cal.App.4th at p. 1339, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 300 [“The test to determine whether a deficiency...