Case Success: Class Certification Denied in 595-Unit Condominium Construction Defect Case

On March 22, 2013, Haight successfully opposed plaintiff’s motion seeking class certification of a construction defect lawsuit involving one of Northern California’s largest condominium developments. The case of Beacon Residential Community Association v. Catellus Third & King, LLC, et. al. (“Beacon”) was filed in 2008 and alleges that the project suffers from excessive heat build up (aka “heat gain”), ventilation and other construction defects in the residential units. Class certification was important for the plaintiffs in order to try and prove the full scope of their $40M+ claim which includes the installation of air conditioning.

The developers and architects of the Beacon project have defended the suit on the basis that the project is just like thousands of other residential structures in San Francisco without air conditioning, that plaintiff’s testing methodology and data suggesting excessive heat are flawed and, finally, like many naturally ventilated structures in San Francisco, on days when it is hot outside, it will be hot inside. The case has been heavily contested and has resulted in one appeal and several writs, including one to the California Supreme Court.

In the written order denying the motion, the Court expressed that many of the concerns raised by the condominium owners lacked the necessary element of commonality because Plaintiffs had conceded that many units have no problem at all. Additionally, the court noted that the “thermal comfort standard” plaintiff sought to impose on the developers and architects to justify the installation of air conditioning was not a requirement but voluntary in nature.

Although class actions are considered prevalent in modern litigation, there are limits to the application and utilization of the class action process.

This document is intended to provide you with information about construction law related developments. The contents of this document are not intended to provide specific legal advice. This communication may be considered advertising in some jurisdictions

April 2, 2013