Here's something you might be interested in.
Safety for the Pittsburgh Steelers and resident of La Jolla, Troy Polamalu, is far from snatching victory in his lawsuit against Harry Rady, son of billionaire philanthropist Ernest Rady, and the realtors who sold Rady's former La Jolla home to Polamalu's for $4.75 million in 2009.
In a March 8 tentative ruling from Judge William Dato, Polamalu's request for a summary judgement was shot down, and will likely result in the case going to to trial.
Polamalu filed the lawsuit months after 2,000 square feet of his backyard slipped down the canyon behind his house during a December 2010 rain storm. The cause of the landslide, alleges Polamalu, was due to an non-permitted backyard renovation conducted by the Radys.
In his lawsuit, which Voice of San Diego writer Randy Dotinga first covered back in June 2011, the Pittsburgh Steeler defender claimed that the owners and developers "allegedly made misrepresentations to the Polamalus, including that the improvements complied with building codes, there were no drainage problems, and there were no defects regarding soil, grading, draining, retaining walls, doors, and windows."
Polamalu is seeking a refund on the house and to recoup the millions of dollars he spent on home improvements.
In December of last year, Polamalu asked the court for a summary adjudication on five issues:
(1) HRMR had a duty to disclose that it added fill to expand the backyard; (2) they are entitled to judgment against the developer defendants for negligent misrepresentation based on their non-disclosure of the fact that HRMR added fill to expand the backyard; (3) they are entitled to judgment against the developer defendants for concealment and intentional fraud based on their non-disclosure of the fact that HRMR added fill to expand the backyard; (4) they are entitled to judgment for rescission of the purchase agreement based on mistake regarding HRMR's addition of fill to expand the backyard; and (5) they are entitled to judgment for rescission based on fraud regarding HRMR's addition of fill to expand the backyard."
Judge Dato's decision, tentative decision, to squash the motion was based on the fact that there was no reasonable evidence that a trial was not needed.
But Polamalu wasn't the only loser in terms of court motions. The realtors in the case, Willis Allen Real Estate and Daniels, filed their own motion for summary judgement.
The realtors claimed that there was no evidence they knowingly tried to defraud Polamalu.
In their motion for summary adjudication of the concealment claim, realtors argue there is no evidence they knew of any undisclosed material facts or intended to defraud plaintiffs. With respect to intentional misrepresentation, they argue there is no evidence they knew their statements were false or they intended to defraud plaintiffs. Realtors contend they are not liable for negligent misrepresentation because plaintiffs cannot show they made a positive assertion of fact or that they had no reasonable grounds for believing the seller's representations.
The judge will give a final ruling at a 1:30pm hairing...hearing on Friday April 5.
http://sandiegoreader.com/users/photos/2013/mar/29/42823/
Safety for the Pittsburgh Steelers and resident of La Jolla, Troy Polamalu, is far from snatching victory in his lawsuit against Harry Rady, son of billionaire philanthropist Ernest Rady, and the realtors who sold Rady's former La Jolla home to Polamalu's for $4.75 million in 2009.
In a March 8 tentative ruling from Judge William Dato, Polamalu's request for a summary judgement was shot down, and will likely result in the case going to to trial.
Polamalu filed the lawsuit months after 2,000 square feet of his backyard slipped down the canyon behind his house during a December 2010 rain storm. The cause of the landslide, alleges Polamalu, was due to an non-permitted backyard renovation conducted by the Radys.
In his lawsuit, which Voice of San Diego writer Randy Dotinga first covered back in June 2011, the Pittsburgh Steeler defender claimed that the owners and developers "allegedly made misrepresentations to the Polamalus, including that the improvements complied with building codes, there were no drainage problems, and there were no defects regarding soil, grading, draining, retaining walls, doors, and windows."
Polamalu is seeking a refund on the house and to recoup the millions of dollars he spent on home improvements.
In December of last year, Polamalu asked the court for a summary adjudication on five issues:
(1) HRMR had a duty to disclose that it added fill to expand the backyard; (2) they are entitled to judgment against the developer defendants for negligent misrepresentation based on their non-disclosure of the fact that HRMR added fill to expand the backyard; (3) they are entitled to judgment against the developer defendants for concealment and intentional fraud based on their non-disclosure of the fact that HRMR added fill to expand the backyard; (4) they are entitled to judgment for rescission of the purchase agreement based on mistake regarding HRMR's addition of fill to expand the backyard; and (5) they are entitled to judgment for rescission based on fraud regarding HRMR's addition of fill to expand the backyard."
Judge Dato's decision, tentative decision, to squash the motion was based on the fact that there was no reasonable evidence that a trial was not needed.
But Polamalu wasn't the only loser in terms of court motions. The realtors in the case, Willis Allen Real Estate and Daniels, filed their own motion for summary judgement.
The realtors claimed that there was no evidence they knowingly tried to defraud Polamalu.
In their motion for summary adjudication of the concealment claim, realtors argue there is no evidence they knew of any undisclosed material facts or intended to defraud plaintiffs. With respect to intentional misrepresentation, they argue there is no evidence they knew their statements were false or they intended to defraud plaintiffs. Realtors contend they are not liable for negligent misrepresentation because plaintiffs cannot show they made a positive assertion of fact or that they had no reasonable grounds for believing the seller's representations.
The judge will give a final ruling at a 1:30pm hairing...hearing on Friday April 5.
http://sandiegoreader.com/users/photos/2013/mar/29/42823/