Superior Court Of California, awoodward Bv *^^ TBeoutv Case Number S87-CU-CD-GDS. Sacramento Detmis Jones, Executive Officer 01/22/2008

Transcription

1 1 CLAYTON M. ANDERSON (SBN 088) MATTHEW R. SCHOECH (SBN ) ANDERSON & KRIGER 81 N. Freeway Blvd., Suite 1 Sacramento, CA 8 Tel: () -10 Fax: () -1 Attorneys for Plaintiffs RLED Superior Court Of California, Sacramento Detmis Jones, Executive Officer 01//08 awoodward Bv *^^ TBeoutv Case Number S8-CU-CD-GDS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO NOEL C. WILLYOUNG, Y'VONNE I. ) WILLYOUNG, TRUSTEES OF THE ) WILLYOUNG TRUST; SHARON D. ) AGRELLA, LOUIS R. MIRAGLIA, ) TRUSTEES OF THE SHARON D. AGRELLA ) AND LOUIS R. MIRAGLIA TRUST; ) CECILIO T. FELIX, ANITA S. FELIX, ) TRUSTEES OF THE FELIX TRUST; ) O.R. LELE, GEORGIA F. LILE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) ) REYNEN & BARDIS DEVELOPMENT, ) LLC, A California Limited Liability Company, ) REYNEN & BARDIS CONSTRUCTION, ) INC., A California Corporation, REYNEN & ) BARDIS COMMUNITIES, INC., A California ) Corporation, RANCHO MURTETA, LP, A ) California Limited Partnership, JOHN D. ) REYNEN CONSTRUCTION CO., and DOES ) 1-0, Inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO. COMPLIANT FOR 1) Strict Liability ) Strict Product Liability ) Negligence i

2 8 1 1 PLAINTIFFS allege as follows' IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES 1. At all times herein mentioned, plaintiffs, NOEL C. WILL YOUNG, and Y'VONNE I. WILL YOUNG, trustees of the Willyoung Trust Created on February, 0 (collectively referred to as "PLAINTIFFS"), were and are the original owners of a single-familj residence located in the Rancho Murieta South Unit No. 8, development, (hereinafter referred to as "DEVELOPMENT") located at Murieta South Parkway, Drive, Lot, APN , in Rancho Murieta, County of Sacramento, State of California.. At all times herein mentioned, plaintiffs, SHARON D. AGRELLA, and LOUIS R MIRAGLIA, trustees of the Sharon D. Agrella and Louis R. Miraglia 18 Trust, (collectivel) referred to as "PLAINTIFFS"), were and are the subsequent owners of a single-family resideno located in the Rancho Murieta South Unit No. 8, development, (hereinafter referred to as "DEVELOPMENT") located at 0 Callaway Drive, Lot, APN , in Rancho Murieta, County of Sacramento, State of California.. At all times herein mentioned, plaintiffs, CECILIO T. FELIX and ANITA S FELIX, trustees of the Felix 1 Family Trust, (collectively referred to as "PLAINTIFFS") were and are the original owners of a single-family residence located in the Rancho Murieta South Unit No. 8, development, (hereinafter referred to as "DEVELOPMENT") located at Colbert Drive, Lot 8, APN , in Rancho Murieta, County of Sacramento, Stat of California.. At all times herein mentioned, plaintiffs, BRIAN O.R. LILE, and GEORGIA F LILE, (collectively referred to as "PLAINTIFFS"), were and are the original owners of a single family residence located in the Rancho Murieta South Unit No. 8, development, (hereinafte

3 referred to as "DEVELOPMENT") located at Callaway Drive, Lot 0, APN , in Rancho Murieta, County of Sacramento, State of California.. PLAINTIFFS are entitled to preference pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section as at least one PLAINTIFF per household is over the age of 0, has substantial interest in the action as a whole, and whose health is such that a preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation.. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that defendant 1 REYNEN & BARDIS DEVELOPMENT, LLC, (hereinafter "REYNEN & BARDIS" or collectively referred to and included in "DEFENDANTS"), was and is a California Limited Liability Company, organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California, anc was and is doing business in the County of Sacramento, State of California. Upon information and belief PLAINTIFFS allege REYNEN & BARDIS owned, planned, developed, constructed maintained, and sold the residences at the DEVELOPMENT.. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that defendant REYNEN & BARDIS CONSTRUCTION,' INC., (hereinafter "R&B CONST" or collectively referred to and included in "DEFENDANTS"), was and is a California Corporation, organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California, and was and is doing business in the County of Sacramento, State of California. Upon information and belief PLAINTIFFS allege R&B CONST owned, planned, developed, constructed, maintained, and sold the residences ai the DEVELOPMENT. 8. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that defendant REYNEN & BARDIS COMMUNITIES, INC., (hereinafter "R&B COMM" or collectively referred to and included in "DEFENDANTS"), was and is a California Corporation, organizec

4 and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California, and was and is doing business in the County of Sacramento, State of California. Upon information and belief PLAINTIFFS allege R&B COMM owned, planned, developed, constructed, maintained, and sold the residences at the DEVELOPMENT.. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that defendant RANCHO MURIETA, L.P., (hereinafter "RANCHO " or collectively referred to and included in "DEFENDANTS"), was and is a limited partnership, organized and existing pursuanl 1 to the laws of the State of California, and was and is doing business in the County of Sacramento, State of California. Upon information and belief PLAINTIFFS allege RANCHO owned, planned, developed, constructed, maintained, and sold the residences at the DEVELOPMENT.. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that defendant, JOHN D. REYNEN CONSTRUCTION CO., (hereinafter "REYNEN CONST" or collectively referred to and included in "DEFENDANTS"), was and is a sole proprietor and was and is doing business in the County of Sacramento, State of California. Upon information and beliei PLAINTIFFS allege REYNEN CONST owned, planned, developed, constructed, maintained, 1 and sold the residences at the DEVELOPMENT.. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, 01 otherwise, of defendants named herein fictitiously as DOES 1 through 0, inclusive, are unknown to PLAINTIFFS. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and based thereon allege thati each of the fictitiously named defendants is in some way liable to PLAINTIFFS for defectively constructing their homes and therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. Specifically, but without limitation, said fictitious defendants include corporations, partnerships, and individuals acting as developers, general contractors, subcontractors, architects, engineers,

5 and material manufacturers and/or suppliers. PLAINTIFFS will amend this to show the true and correct names and capacities of said fictitiously named defendants when the same have been ascertained.. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fac involved affecting the parties to be represented. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that: A. DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through were developers of mass-produced 1 1 residential housing and subject to construction defect liability under strict liability and negligence causes of action; B. DEFENDANTS and DOES -0 were manufacturers, suppliers or distributors 01 products and/or component parts, used in the construction of the homes and subject to stric liability; C. DEFENDANTS and DOES 1 through 0 were contractors, sub-contractors, 01 professionals engaged in the construction of residential housing and subject to liability undei negligence; D. The soil grading reports, site grading plans, and grading operations performed on the DEVELOPMENT affect all of the homes; E. The DEVELOPMENT consisted of various models, with standard components and fixtures as referenced to in this ; F. The construction defects complained of concern standard components for the DEVELOPMENT including: continuous shifting/movement of surface and subgrade soils drywall cracks, leaking showers/tubs, stucco cracks, inadequate site drainage, flooring failures cracks in concrete slabs, defective plumbing and plumbing fixtures, defective HVAC units

6 electrical systems failures, defective chimneys and fireplace inserts, defective fencing, and similar types of components; G. DEFENDANTS, have in many cases attempted repairs on the standarc components without success. BACKGROUND FACTS. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe and thereon allege that th DEVELOPMENT consists of, approximately, 0 homes and were built in approximately 0 and 0 and are located in the City of Rancho Murieta, County of Sacramento, State o California. The DEFENDANTS and DOES 1-0 constructed the homes in tb DEVELOPMENT. 1. PLAINTIFFS purchased the homes within the last years from the filing of thi 1 _ -j Q. Within the time allowed under the Civil Code, PLAINTIFFS have become awan of construction defects as alleged hereinafter.. DEFENDANTS attempted repairs on some of the defective conditions, whicl repairs have tolled the statute of limitations. DEFENDANTS repeatedly promised to repair th defective conditions, causing PLAINTIFFS to delay the filing of this lawsuit and thu DEFENDANTS are equitably estopped to now assert the statute of limitations as a defense. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Strict Liability Against All Developer Defendants). PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegatior contained in all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. At all times prior to the sale of the homes, DEFENDANTS, and each of them

7 were involved in the planning, construction, marketing, inspection, mass distribution and sale o the homes to the public, or were manufacturers of component parts used in the manufacturing o homes. 1. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were the agents, employees and representatives of each other doing things alleged herein and in so doing were acting within th scope of their respective authority and agency as such agents employees and representatives, and are jointly and severally liable to the PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were and now are builders, developers merchants, manufacturers, mass-producers, dealers, sellers and mass-distributors of housing to the public for profit. Buyers of the homes were led to and reasonably did conclude tha DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were skilled in the task and effort of building, developing manufacturing, inspecting, creating, marketing, selling and distributing residential housing, o manufacturing the component parts that would be used in the construction of homes.. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, knew that the homes, including its variou components, would be purchased and used by the owners without sufficient inspection to determine the existence of any defects.. It was the intent of DEFENDANTS, and each of them, to accomplish, and DEFENDANTS eventually did accomplish, the planning, construction, marketing, inspection mass distribution and sale of the homes to the public. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believi that DEFENDANTS, and each of them, had an interest in the outcome of the homes and th subsequent sale and distribution of the homes to members of the public.. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, tha DEFENDANTS, and each of them, knew and intended that the homes would be used as famil)

8 residences, and knew and intended that the various component parts as alleged in the preceding paragraphs would be incorporated into the homes so that purchasers of the homes would have watertight, stable, secure, useful and otherwise habitable dwelling residences.. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the homes have and are experiencing the following construction failures and deficiencies: A. Substantial cracking of concrete slabs, exterior stucco cracking and interior drywall due to continuous shifting, settling and/or expansion of surface and subgrade soils; 1 IV 1 B. Substantial cracking and/or efflorescence of concrete driveways, walkways and patios due to continuous shifting, settling and/or expansion of surface and subgrade soils; C. Interior and exterior floor surfaces and doorframes have warped and become uneven due to shifting, settling and/or expansion of surface and subgrade soils; D. Defective windows and window installation, including window condensation sliding glass doors, sliding windows, and other windows, resulting in staining and/or deterioration of drywall, mildew, and collection of water within the wall framing itself; E. Inadequate design of shower and bath enclosures, causing leakage and severe water damage to the adjacent drywall and other building components, resulting in mold, mildew dry rot and other deterioration; F. Defective bathroom and kitchen tile counter tops and cabinetry installation causing cracks and gaps in the grout and tile; G. Defective, cracked and poorly installed roofing, causing leaks, structural damage moisture damage to adjacent components and building materials and potential physical harm from materials falling from the roof; H. Warped, water damaged garage and other exterior doors;

9 damage to interior flooring; K. Electrical problems including faulty GFI outlets, electrical outlets that are nonfunctioning, and/or faulty breakers switches, L. Substantial cracking of exterior stucco due to continuous shifting, settling and/or expansion of surface and subgrade soils; and M. Other construction and product defects, unknown at this time that may be discovered during the pendency of this action., 1 1. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that other construction deficiencies exist throughout the homes, including but not limited to, individual unit interiors. PLAINTIFFS are investigating the extent of these presently unknown construction deficiencies and, when identified, will include them in this action by amendment or by proof a the time of trial. The construction deficiencies set forth in the preceding paragraphs continue to deteriorate and to degrade, and the damages will continue in the future. PLAINTIFFS have also suffered damage to personal property to an extent and in an amount to be shown according to proof at the time of trial.. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the construction deficiencies described in the preceding paragraphs were and are latent deficiencie: within the meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure section. PLAINTIFFS, at al times herein mentioned, relied on the skill of DEFENDANTS, including DOES 1 through and each of them, in production homes that are reasonably fit for their intended purpose.

10 . PLAINTIFFS have given notice to DEFENDANTS of the construction deficiencies set forth in the preceding paragraphs within reasonable time after discovery and on more than one occasion. DEFENDANTS have failed and refused to complete necessary repair; and/or made inadequate repairs since completion of the homes. DEFENDANTS have assured PLAINTIFFS that their complaints were improper, that the defective conditions were normal and not defective; or that DEFENDANTS had adequately and properly repaired and resolved the problems, thereby estopping PLAINTIFFS from taking action prior to the filing of this 1 1, only shortly before which PLAINTIFFS came to appreciate the nature and extent o these conditions. As a result of the construction deficiencies identified in the preceding paragraphs PLAINTIFFS have or will sustain damages as set forth in the prayer. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Strict Product Liability Against All Defendants) 0. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 1. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege that at all times herein mentioned, DEFENDANTS were manufacturers of finished products and component parts which were placed into the stream of commerce by DEFENDANTS, including but not limited to windows and window components, bathroom and kitchen sinks, shower pans, HVAC components, electrical components, exterior siding, and other products not presently identified DEFENDANTS, and each of them, manufactured the products to their own plans anc specifications and sold them to real estate developers and contractors. The products were placec into the stream of commerce as alleged above.

11 . PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege that these DEFENDANTS, and each of them, knew that the various manufactured products anc components would be incorporated into the construction of the development and would be purchased and used without sufficient inspection to determine the existence of any defects.. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege that it was the intent of these DEFENDANTS, and each of them, to accomplish, and DEFENDANTS eventually did accomplish, the manufacturing, supplying and distributing, mass distribution and sale o 1 1 component parts. These products were ultimately sold to the public upon sale of the individua home in the development.. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege tha DEFENDANTS, and each of them, knew and intended that the various component parts as alleged in the preceding paragraphs would be incorporated into single family residences such a the homes in the DEVELOPMENT.. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that there ma) be possibly further defective conditions associated with the components in the DEVELOPMENT which may be discovered prior to trial and which will be the subject of further proof.. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the above referenced defects with the manufactured products and components have no relationship to the manner of installation or the workmanship used in installation. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that th construction deficiencies described in the preceding paragraphs were and are latent deficiencie within the meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure section. in that they were no apparent by reasonable inspection at the time the homes were sold, or three years prior to th

12 8 1 filing of this. 8. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the abovereferenced products and conditions are the result of defects in design and/or manufacture anc assembly, or some combination of both, and that they were present when the manufactured products left the control of the DEFENDANTS, and each of them.. As a result of the defective products and components identified in the preceding paragraphs, PLAINTIFFS have or will sustain damages as set forth in the prayer. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Negligence Against All Defendants) 0. PLAINTIFFS reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in all previous paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 1. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were under a duty to exercise ordinary care as developers, designers, engineers and/or contractors to avoid reasonably foreseeable injury to users and purchasers of the homes. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, knew or should have foreseen with reasonable certainty that said purchasers and/or users would suffer monetary and non-monetary damages, as set forth herein, if said DEFENDANTS failed to perform their dutie; to cause the homes to be constructed in a proper and workmanlike manner. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, ma DEFENDANTS, and each of them, negligently built, inspected, tested, designed, graded o otherwise constructed the homes including soil building pads, concrete slabs, concret foundations, windows, sliding glass doors, shower and tubs, plumbing, fencing, exterior stucco and related portions of the structures.

13 . As a result of the negligent performance of their services, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as alleged herein above, the homes have failed, become defective and been damaged.. PLAINTIFFS are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that the construction deficiencies described in the preceding paragraphs were and are latent deficiencie; within the meaning of California Code of Civil Procedure section.. On the occasion o discovery of construction deficiencies, PLAINTIFFS were wrongfully persuaded b> 1 1 DEFENDANTS that any damage and negligent design and construction discovered had been fully corrected, and PLAINTIFFS could not have reasonably discovered the negligent conduct o the DEFENDANTS.. As a result of the negligence of DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as allegec herein above, PLAINTIFFS, have sustained and will sustain damages as alleged in the prayer. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFFS, and each of them, pray for judgment agains DEFENDANTS, and each of them, jointly and severally, as follows: A. For compensatory damages for repairs and resulting damage in excess o $1,000,000; B. For investigative expenses including, but not limited to, architectural and engineering investigations, in excess of $0,000; trial; C. For compensation for damages to personal property, according to proof at time o D. For cost of prior repairs, according to proof at time of trial; E. For interest thereon at the maximum legal rate; and,

14 8 1 1 F. DATED: For costs of suit herein incurred ANDERSON & KRIGER MATTHEW R. SCHOECH Attorney for Plaintiffs 1