Starwood v. Raytheon
Filed 4/5/06 Starwood v. Raytheon CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| STARWOOD CORPORATION, a Michigan corporation, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. RAYTHEON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants and Respondents. | B182099 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC320173) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Alexander Williams III, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Clark & Goldberg, Roger W. Clark and Robert D. Goldberg for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory, Patrick E. Breen and Andrew E. Miller for Defendants and Respondents Raytheon Corporation and Santa Barbara Research Center.
Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, Kathy A. Jorrie and Sam S. Oh for Defendant and Respondent Envirotest Systems Corporation.
__________________________
SUMMARY
The trial court sustained the defendants' demurrer to the plaintiff's original complaint without leave to amend on statute of limitations grounds and ordered the plaintiff's action dismissed. Because the trial court erred in this regard, we reverse.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SYNOPSIS
According to the allegations of the complaint and the attached exhibits, Starwood Corporation's predecessor-in-interest (as Lessor (hereinafter Starwood)) and Raytheon Corporation's predecessor-in-interest and Santa Barbara Research Center (as Co-Lessees) entered into a Master Equipment Lease continuing in effect â€
