This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/07/2019 at 21:43:07 (UTC).

Dasari, et al. v. KB Home South Bay, Inc.

Case Summary

On 04/25/2018 Dasari filed a Property - Construction Defect lawsuit against KB Home South Bay, Inc. This case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Kuhnle, Thomas. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******7168

  • Filing Date:

    04/25/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Construction Defect

  • Court:

    Santa Clara County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Downtown Superior Court

  • County, State:

    Santa Clara, California

Judge Details

Judge

Kuhnle, Thomas

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Dasari, Rajesh

Shieh, John

Jiang, Pinshan

Huang, Rosemary

Krishnamurthy, Vikram

Herale, Shruthi

Defendant

KB Home South Bay, Inc.

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Kurtz, Christina Lein

Jackson, Lee

Defendant Attorneys

Packer, Alan H

Clouse, Brandon Alexander

King, Jonathan N

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Notice

Notice: Comment: CMC on 7/26/19 is vacated by the Court; Dismissal After Settlement Hearing set for 11/15/19 at 10am in D5

Notice: Settlement

Notice of Settlement of Entire Case: Comment: Notice of Settlement of Entire Case

Dismissal

Dismissal Without Prejudice of Complaint by Rosemary Huang ONLY: Comment: Partial * Dismissal Without Prejudice of the Complaint as to Plaintiff Rosemary Huang only

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 12-7-18 to 7-26-19: Comment: CMC reset from 12/7/18 to 7/26/19

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Hearing Date N/A - Joint Case Management Statement

Advance jury fee (Nonrefundable)

Advance Jury Fee (Nonrefundable): Comment: $150

Notice

Notice CMC reset from 8-17-18 to 12-7-18: Comment: CMC reset from 8/17/18 to 12/7/18

Stipulation and Order

Stipulation and Order to Stay Action; CMC reset to 12-7-18: Comment: Stipulation & Order to Stay Action; CMC is reset from 8/17/18 to 12/7/18 - signed/TEK

Statement: Case Management Conference

HRG 8-17-2018 Case Management Statement: Comment: HRG 8-17-2018 Case Management Statement

Notice

Ntc of Payment of Complex Fees.pdf: Comment: Notice of Payment of Complex Fees

Notice

Notice of Appearance.pdf: Comment: Notice of Appearance

Dismissal

Dismissal: Comment: Partial * Dismissal Without Prejudice of the Complaint as to Plaintiff Pinshan Jiang only

Order: Deeming Case Complex

Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/TEK

Order

Order and Notice of Reassignment to D5 TEK and CMC reset to 8-17-18: Comment: Order & Notice of Reassignment of Case to Department 5; CMC reset to 8/17/18 at 10am in D5 - signed/TEK

Summons: Issued/Filed

Full Summons on Original 4-25-18 BW.pdf:

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet 4-25-18 BW.pdf:

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

5 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/15/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Conference: Case Management - Notice of Settlement of Entire Case: Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Comment: Dismissal After Settlement Hearing. Notice of Conditional Settlement filed 7/9/19. Dismissal to be filed by 10/30/19.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2019
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: (1st CMC) Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 5/21/18, when the case was deemed complex. Stipulation & Order to Stay Action to allow parties to comply with SB800 pre-litigation procedures entered on 8/14/18. SETTLED.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice: Comment: CMC on 7/26/19 is vacated by the Court; Dismissal After Settlement Hearing set for 11/15/19 at 10am in D5

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/09/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice: Settlement - Notice of Settlement of Entire Case: Comment: Notice of Settlement of Entire Case

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/30/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC reset from 12-7-18 to 7-26-19: Comment: CMC reset from 12/7/18 to 7/26/19

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/26/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Hearing Date N/A - Joint Case Management Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/13/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Dismissal - Dismissal Without Prejudice of Complaint by Rosemary Huang ONLY: Comment: Partial * Dismissal Without Prejudice of the Complaint as to Plaintiff Rosemary Huang only

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/15/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Advance jury fee (Nonrefundable) - Advance Jury Fee (Nonrefundable): Comment: $150

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC reset from 8-17-18 to 12-7-18: Comment: CMC reset from 8/17/18 to 12/7/18

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order to Stay Action; CMC reset to 12-7-18: Comment: Stipulation & Order to Stay Action; CMC is reset from 8/17/18 to 12/7/18 - signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Statement: Case Management Conference - HRG 8-17-2018 Case Management Statement: Comment: HRG 8-17-2018 Case Management Statement

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/08/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Ntc of Payment of Complex Fees.pdf: Comment: Notice of Payment of Complex Fees

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice of Appearance.pdf: Comment: Notice of Appearance

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/03/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Request: Dismissal - Dismissal: Comment: Partial * Dismissal Without Prejudice of the Complaint as to Plaintiff Pinshan Jiang only

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order: Deeming Case Complex - Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/21/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order - Order and Notice of Reassignment to D5 TEK and CMC reset to 8-17-18: Comment: Order & Notice of Reassignment of Case to Department 5; CMC reset to 8/17/18 at 10am in D5 - signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Full Summons on Original 4-25-18 BW.pdf:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet 4-25-18 BW.pdf:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/25/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

4/25/2018 2:53 PM

MILSTEIN JACKSON Clerk of Court

FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP Superior Court of CA, 10250 Constellation Blvd, 14™ Floor County of Santa Clara Los Angeles, California 90067 18CV327168

Telephone: (310) 396-9600 Reviewed By: A. Hwang

Fax: (310) 396-9635 Lee Jackson, State Bar No.: 216970

ljackson@ mjfwlaw.com Christina Kurtz, State Bar No.: 244875

ckurtz@ mjfwlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Rajesh Dasari, et. al.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

RAJESH DASARI; ROSEMARY HUANG; CASE NO: 18CV327168 PINSHAN JIANG; VIKRAM

KRISHNAMURTHY & SHRUTHI HERALE; COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:

JOHN SHIEH; Plaintiffs, 1. VIOLATION OF BUILDING

STANDARDS AS SET FORTH IN

vs. CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §896 KB HOME SOUTH BAY, INC.;andDOES - | 3 BREAGH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

1000, INCLUSIVE

Defendants.

Plaintiffs allege:

1. Plaintiffs are individuals residing in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 2, The subjects of this action are the land with single family dwellings and other improvements thereon, owned by Plaintiffs respectively, (hereinafter collectively referred to as the

#| HOMEOWNER(S) | PROPERTY ADDRESS TRACT

Lot g st cason |20 o 1 | Dasari, Rajesh 406 Alvarez Cmn, Milpitas, CA 95035 Serena 65 ity [ g 2 | Huang, Rosemary 95035 Serena

3 J|ang Pinshan 1207 Claridad Loop, M|Ip|tas CA 95035 9698

SR ot ||

Shruthi Herale 246 Alvarez Cmn, Milpitas, CA 95035 9698

s shienjom | 462 Averez crm, ipis,caso3s | Serena | 72 5 | Shieh, J ohn 462 Alvarez Cmn, Milpitas, CA 95035 Serena

3. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all times herein

mentioned and material hereto that Defendant, KB Homes South Bay, Inc., was and is a corporation authorized to conduct business in California and engaged in business in the County of Santa Clara and were the developers and/or general contractors of the PROPERTY and the project(s) within which the PROPERTY is located.

4, The names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise of certain developers, builders, general contractors, subcontractors and/or their alter egos sued herein as DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, are presently unknown, and Plaintiffs will amend the Complaint to insert the same when ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that each of these Defendants was a resident of said County and State and/or have principal offices or were doing business in said County and State and were and are responsible in some way for the happenings and damages alleged in this complaint. Said Defendants, along with the Defendants named above, will hereinafter be referred to as the “DEVELOPER DEFENDANTS.”

5. In order to build and construct said PROPERTY and project(s) the DEVELOPER DEFENDANTS hired, retained, employed, or contracted for the services of certain persons or entities to plan, design, and prepare drawings and specifications for the building of the PROPERTY and project. The identities of said persons or entities, whether individual, corporate or otherwise, sued herein as Does 101 through 200, are presently unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sue such

persons by their fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that said persons or entities are wholly or in some part responsible for the occurrences set forth in the complaint. These Defendants will hereinafter be referred to as the “DESIGN DEFENDANTS.”

0. In order to build and construct said project the DEVELOPER DEFENDANTS hired, retained, employed, or contracted with persons or entities to provide for labor and materials in the construction of the PROPERTY and project(s). The identities of said persons or entities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, sued herein as Does 201 through 400 are presently unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sue such persons by their fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that said persons or entities are wholly or in some part responsible for the occurrences set for in the Complaint. These Defendants will herein after be referred to as the “CONTRACTOR DEFENDANTS.”

7. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that there were other persons and entities involved in the planning, design, construction, maintenance, repairs, and sale of the PROPERTY and project(s). The identities of said persons or entities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, sued herein as Does 401-1000 are presently unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sue such persons by their fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that said persons or entities are wholly or in some part responsible for the occurrences set forth in the complaint. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based thereon allege that at all times herein mentioned Defendants and each of them were the agents, servants, employees, assistants and consultants of their co-Defendants and were as such acting within the course and scope of their

agency and authority of such agency and employment.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF BUILDING STANDARDS AS SET FORTH IN CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 896 (ALL DEFENDANTYS)

3. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1 through 7, inclusive, and incorporate the same as if set forth herein at length.

9. Plaintiffs and each of them, purchased the PROPERTY on or after January 1, 2003. 10. Plaintiffs and each of them, have fully complied with the provisions set forth in California Civil Code section 895 et. seq., to no avail, and now rightfully bring an action for violations of building standards as set forth in California Civil Code section 896.

11. DEVELOPER DEFENDANTS and each of them, at all times herein mentioned were in the business of developing and mass producing and/or distributing homes in and, within Santa Clara County, State of California, and selling them to members of the public at large.

12. At all times herein mentioned and material hereto, DEVELOPER DEFENDANTS knew and intended that the PROPERTY would be purchased by members of the public at large, and used by them without further inspection for defects.

13. Plaintiffs purchased the PROPERTY from said DEVELOPER DEFENDANTS and moved into it with their families.

14, At the time of the purchase by Plaintiffs, the PROPERTY was defective and unfit forits intended purposes because Defendants did not construct the PROPERTY in a workmanlike manner as manifested by, but not limited to, numerous defects which have resulted in damage to the homes and their component parts. The defects include, without limitation and to various degrees on the plaintiffs’ respective residences, the following:

(a) With respect to water issues:

(1) Exterior doors at the PROPERTY allow unintended water to pass beyond, around, or through the door or its designed or actual moisture barriers.

(2) Windows, patio doors, deck doors, and their systems at the PROPERTY allow water to pass beyond, around, or through the window, patio door, or deck door or its designed or actual moisture barriers, including, without limitation, internal barriers within the systems themselves

(3) Windows, patio doors, deck doors, and their systems at the PROPERTY allow excessive condensation to enter the structure.

(4) Roofs, roofing systems, chimney caps, and ventilation components at the PROPERTY allow water to enter the structure or to pass beyond, around, or through the designed or

actual moisture barriers, including, without limitation, internal barriers located within the systems themselves.

(5) Decks, deck systems, balconies, balcony systems, exterior stairs, and stair systems at the PROPERTY allow water to pass into the adjacent structure.

(6) Decks, deck systems, balconies, balcony systems, exterior stairs, and stair systems at the PROPERTY allow unintended water to pass within the systems themselves.

(7) Foundation systems and slabs at the PROPERTY allow water or vapor to enter into the structure.

(8) Foundation systems and slabs at the PROPERTY allow water or vapor to enter into the structure so as to limit the installation of the type of flooring materials typically used for the particular application.

(9) Hardscape, including paths and patios, irrigation systems, landscaping systems, and drainage systems, that are installed as part of the original construction of the PROPERTY, are installed in such a way as to cause water or soil erosion to enter into or come in contact with the structure.

(10) Stucco, exterior siding, exterior walls, including, without limitation, exterior framing, and other exterior wall finishes and fixtures and the systems of those components and fixtures, including, but not limited to, pot shelves, horizontal surfaces, columns, and plant- ons, at the PROPERTY allow unintended water to pass into the structure or to pass beyond, around, or through the designed or actual moisture barriers of the system, including any internal barriers located within the system itself.

(11) Stucco, exterior siding, and exterior walls at the PROPERTY allow excessive condensation to enter the structure.

(12) Retaining and site walls and their associated drainage systems at the PROPERTY allow unintended water to pass beyond, around, or through its designed or actual moisture barriers including, without limitation, any internal barriers.

(13) Retaining walls and site walls, and their associated drainage systems, at the PROPERTY allow water to flow beyond, around, or through the areas designated by

design. (14) The lines and components of the plumbing system, sewer system, and utility systems at the PROPERTY leak.

(15) Plumbing lines, sewer lines, and utility lines at the PROPERTY are corroded so as to impede the useful life of the systems.

(16) Sewer systems at the PROPERTY do not allow the designated amount of sewage to flow through the system.

(17) Shower and bath enclosures at the PROPERTY leak water into the interior of walls, flooring systems, or the interior of other components.

(18) Ceramic tile and tile countertops at the PROPERTY allow water into the interior of walls, flooring systems, or other components.

(b) With respect to structural issues:

(1) Foundations, load bearing components, and slabs at the PROPERTY contain significant cracks or significant vertical displacement.

(2) Foundations, load bearing components, and slabs at the PROPERTY cause the structure, in whole or in part, to be structurally unsafe.

(3) Foundations, load bearing components, slabs, and underlying soils at the PROPERTY are not constructed so as to materially comply with the design criteria set by applicable government building codes, regulations, and ordinances for chemical deterioration or corrosion resistance in effect at the time of original construction.

(4) The PROPERTY is not constructed so as to materially comply with the design criteria for earthquake and wind load resistance, as set forth in the applicable government building codes, regulations, and ordinances in effect at the time of original construction.

(c) With respect to soil issues:

(1) Soils and engineered retaining walls at the PROPERTY cause, in whole or in part, damage to the structure built upon the soil or engineered retaining wall.

(2) Soils and engineered retaining walls at the PROPERTY cause, in whole or in part, the structure to be structurally unsafe.

(3) Soils at the PROPERTY cause, in whole or in part, the land upon which no structure is built to become unusable for the purpose represented at the time of original sale by the builder or for the purpose for which that land is commonly used.

(d) With respect to fire protection issues:

(1) The PROPERTY 1is not constructed so as to materially comply with the design criteria of the applicable government building codes, regulations, and ordinances for fire protection of the occupants in effect at the time of the original construction.

(2) Fireplaces, chimneys, chimney structures, and chimney termination caps at the PROPERTY are constructed and installed in suchcause an unreasonable risk of fire outside the fireplace enclosure or chimney.

(3) Electrical and mechanical systems at the PROPERTY are constructed and installed in suchcause an unreasonable risk of fire.

(e) With respect to plumbing and sewer issues:

Plumbing and sewer systems at the PROPERTY are not installed to operate properly and materially impair the use of the structure by its inhabitants

(f) With respect to electrical system issues:

Electrical systems at the PROPERTY do not operate properly and materially impair the use of the structure by its inhabitants.

(g) With respect to issues regarding other areas of construction:

(1) Exterior pathways, driveways, hardscape, sidewalls, sidewalks, and patios installed by the original builder at the PROPERTY contain cracks that display significant vertical displacement or that are excessive.

(2) Stucco, exterior siding, and other exterior wall finishes and fixtures, including, but not limited to, pot shelves, horizontal surfaces, columns, and plant-ons, at the PROPERTY contain significant cracks or separations.

(3) The manufactured products (product that is completely manufactured offsite), including, but not limited to, windows, doors, roofs, plumbing products and fixtures, fireplaces, electrical fixtures, HVAC units, countertops, cabinets, paint, and appliances at

the PROPERTY are installed so as to interfere with the products' useful life. (4) The Heating system, at the PROPERTY, is incapable of maintaining a room temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit at a point three feet above the floor. (5) Living space air-conditioning, at the PROPERTY, is provided in a manner inconsistent with the size and efficiency design criteria specified in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations or its successor. (6) Attached structures at the PROPERTY do not comply with interunit noise transmission standards set by the applicable government building codes, ordinances, or regulations in effect at the time of the original construction. (7) Irrigation systems and drainage at the PROPERTY operate improperly. (8) Untreated wood posts at the PROPERTY that are installed in contact with soil evidence unreasonable decay to the wood based upon the finish grade at the time of original construction. (9) Untreated steel fences and adjacent components at the PROPERTY evidence unreasonable corrosion. (10) Paint and stains at the PROPERTY have been applied in such a manner so as to cause deterioration of the building surfaces. (11) Roofing materials at the PROPERTY have fallen from the roof. (12) Ceramic tile and tile backing at the PROPERTY are installed in such a manner that the tile detaches. (13) The PROPERTY is constructed in such a manner so as to impair the occupants' safety because they contain public health hazards as determined by a duly authorized public health official, health agency, or governmental entity having jurisdiction. 15. Within the last 3 years Plaintiffs became aware of the defects and deficiencies. The Plaintiffs thereafter gave and/or attempted to give DEVELOPER DEFENDANTS due and timely notice of the defective quality of the above mentioned items. 16. The defects alleged herein above are defects that were not apparent by reasonable inspection of the PROPERTY at the time of the purchase. The defects thereafter manifested.

(4) The Heating system, at the PROPERTY, is incapable of maintaining a room temperature of 70 degrees Fahrenheit at a point three feet above the floor. (5) Living space air-conditioning, at the PROPERTY, is provided in a manner inconsistent with the size and efficiency design criteria specified in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations or its successor. (6) Attached structures at the PROPERTY do not comply with interunit noise transmission standards set by the applicable government building codes, ordinances, or regulations in effect at the time of the original construction. (7) Irrigation systems and drainage at the PROPERTY operate improperly. (8) Untreated wood posts at the PROPERTY that are installed in contact with soil evidence unreasonable decay to the wood based upon the finish grade at the time of original construction. (9) Untreated steel fences and adjacent components at the PROPERTY evidence unreasonable corrosion. (10) Paint and stains at the PROPERTY have been applied in such a manner so as to cause deterioration of the building surfaces. (11) Roofing materials at the PROPERTY have fallen from the roof. (12) Ceramic tile and tile backing at the PROPERTY are installed in such a manner that the tile detaches. (13) The PROPERTY is constructed in such a manner so as to impair the occupants' safety because they contain public health hazards as determined by a duly authorized public health official, health agency, or governmental entity having jurisdiction. 15. Within the last 3 years Plaintiffs became aware of the defects and deficiencies. The Plaintiffs thereafter gave and/or attempted to give DEVELOPER DEFENDANTS due and timely notice of the defective quality of the above mentioned items. 16. The defects alleged herein above are defects that were not apparent by reasonable inspection of the PROPERTY at the time of the purchase. The defects thereafter manifested. 17. Because of the defective conditions of the PROPERTY as herein above alleged, Plaintiffs have been specifically damaged in the following ways, as well as others which will be inserted with leave of court when ascertained:

A) Plaintiffs will be forced to incur expenses for the restoration and repairs of the PROPERTY to cure the damage, defects and/or deficiencies. The exact amount of the damages is presently unknown, except that the costs will be in excess of $50,000 per home.

B) Plaintiffs have been damaged through the diminution in value of the PROPERTY . Plaintiffs are unaware of the precise amount of such damage but will establish such amount at time of trial.

C) Plaintiffs have been forced to retain expert consultants to analyze and determine the method of repairing the aforementioned defects and damage. Plaintiffs are unaware of the precise amount of such damage but will establish such amount at time of trial.

18. DEVELOPER DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as developers, mass producers, and builders are liable for and responsible to Plaintiffs for all damage suffered as a result of the

above described violations of section 896 of the California Civil Code.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT

(ORIGINAL PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS vs. DEVELOPER DEFENDANTYS)

19. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs of this complaint as though set forth in full herein.

20. On various dates, original purchaser Plaintiffs entered into written sales contracts with DEVELOPER DEFENDANTS pursuant to which DEVELOPER DEFENDANTS, in exchange for payment of certain sums, agreed to provide original purchaser Plaintiffs with quality

residences which were constructed in a workmanlike manner. 21. Original purchaser Plaintiffs have performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required by the sales contracts in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract. 22. Defendants have breached the sales contracts as set forth herein by failing to

provide residences constructed in a workmanlike manner as previously alleged herein above in paragraph 14, as a result of which original purchaser Plaintiffs have been specifically damaged as

herein above alleged in paragraph 17.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(ORIGINAL PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS vs. DEVELOPER DEFENDANTYS)

23. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs of this complaint as though set forth in full herein. 24, Developer defendants expressly warranted through the Real Estate Purchase

Contracts, and other documents that the subject properties were designed, constructed, developed,

inspected, and manufactured, in accordance with all the applicable Federal, State and municipal

law, ordinances, rules and regulations and that the subject properties were structurally sound, free of all material defects and designed and constructed for the intended purposes. Defendants further warranted that the homes and soils constructed thereon were in good working order and condition with no deficiencies therein.

25. Original purchaser Plaintiffs relied on defendants express representations.

20. Defendants breached said warranties in that the properties were not properly designed and constructed and were defective as set forth in paragraph 14.

27. Within the last three years, original purchaser plaintiffs discovered the defective quality of the above listed items involving the dwellings and pads. Original purchaser Plaintiffs thereafter gave DEVELOPER DEFENDANTS that they knew of, and each of them, due and timely notice of the defective quality of the above mentioned items. DEVELOPER DEFENDANTS failed

and/or refused to rectify said items. 28. The damages described hereinabove caused by the breaches of warranty by DEVELOPER DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were not apparent by reasonable inspection of the property and project at the time of purchase. The defects and damages were latent and were not reasonably apparent to original purchaser plaintiffs until on or about the time of notification to the DEVELOPER DEFENDANTS.

29. Asaresult of the foregoing acts or omissions by defendants, plaintiffs have been damaged as set forth in paragraph 17.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the D efendants, and each of them, as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: 1. For all damages and costs as provided for by Civil Code §944.

FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION:

1. For costs of restoration and repairs to the PROPERTY in excess of $50,000 per home; 2. For costs of investigation;

3. For diminution of value of the PROPERTY according to proof at time of

trial; 4, For expert fees and costs of suit; 5. For loss of use of the property and relocation expenses; 0. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. DATED: April 25, 2018 MILSTEIN, JACKSON,

FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP