Chambers v. Sup. Ct.
Filed 2/15/07 Chambers v. Sup. Ct. CA5
NOT TO BEPUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CaliforniaRules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing orrelying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, exceptas specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified forpublication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OFAPPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATEDISTRICT
| JEAN CHAMBERS et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF KERN COUNTY,
Respondent;
BLAKE ARNOLD CONSTRUCTION et al.,
Real Parties In Interest.
| F052059
(Kern Sup. Ct. No. S-1500-CV-253830)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate.
Shinnick & Ryan and LukePatrick Ryan, for Petitioners.
No appearance for Respondent.
Bremer, Whyte, Brown & O'Meara, LLP andKeith G. Bremer, for Real Parties in Interest Rick R. Lawthon and CindyLawthon.
-ooOoo-
Petitioners Jean Chambers, et al. challenge thedenial of their motion to amend thepleadings to identify Doe defendants.
STATEMENT OFCASE AND FACTS
Petitioners, homeowners in the Tevis Ranchdevelopment in Bakersfield, California, filed a complaint against defendantsCommunity Construction and Tevis Ranch LLP, as well as Does 1 through 500, onSeptember 22, 2004, alleging defective construction in the Tevis Ranchdevelopment. In August 2005, defendants filed cross-complaints against varioussubcontractors including the 13 real parties in interest. The parties engagedin limited discovery including visualinspection and intrusive testing. Initial mediation was held on June 29,2006. Additional visual inspections were undertaken in August 2006 andsubsequent mediation occurred in September 2006.
On October 12, 2006, petitioners filed their motion for leave to file an amendment to thecomplaint to identify real parties in interest herein as Doe defendants. Petitionersasserted they were ignorant of the facts giving rise to a negligence cause ofaction against the subcontractors because petitioners only learned of the truerelationship between the specialized subcontractors and constructiondeficiencies after the case was fully investigated. According to thedeclaration submitted in support of the motion by Luke Ryan, counsel for petitioners,â€
| Description | Petitioners challenge the denial of their motion to amend the pleadings to identify defendants. Peremptory writ of mandate issue directing the Kern County Superior Court to vacate its November 21, 2006 order,insofar as the order denied petitioners' motion to amend the complaint to name defendants, and issue a new order granting the request. |
| Rating |
