case law in the record over early resolution of the case judgment and there's a lot here to talk about and so if there's any particular issues you'd like me to address that's fine i'll try to focus on what's not necessarily totally in the briefs more just there's a little more refinement so first i'd like to talk about the difference between the eighty five why in the twenty nine why warranties at issue in the case this to me i think was the most egregious error by the trial court because the court had resolved which of the two warranties applied under the circumstances in the case where you contended it was the twenty nine right in the second minute complaint we did we didn't eighty five which is the one you wanted the court actually assumed it was the twenty nine why warranty and essentially bought the declaration by mr i think it was johnson was his name from the diking company and didn't really evaluate whether she should be taking judicial notice of that declaration of that time we did oppose that in the opposition to the motion to dismiss the judge also say that even if the eighty five or eighty five why weren't you playing with changes  i think that in part was on the privy issue but not looking solely at the actual terms in the warranty language itself the privity issue is the primary reason why she granted the motion with respect to the warranties and  in the eighty five y warranty and the language is clear there that wording to any owner that's the correct word to any owner and i also submit that you can take that same language from that warrantied to try to help define what owner means in twenty nine as well in terms of the company's policies and practices and if they're in there it's not even necessarily a third party beneficiary think their direct beneficiary of the warranty and if i want to warranty under twenty nine why i think that there's a good argument to be made that the also a third party beneficiary because they're the one who's actually using the product for the duration of the warranty period why doesn't either warranty be subject to the for your statute of limitation we argued in the court below that the both warranties were future performance warranties under the cal commercial code twenty seven twenty five subject subsection two and what that provision provides essential is if the warranty provides for future perpetual warranty oh well it's it's the express language of the statute it's also the krieger decision in the california court of appeal that made that decision and it said you know if there's a warranty out there and it prescribe something for a specific period of time in the future then there is no other thing that can be then a future performance as warranty and i was also to take eighty five one that was only warranted which performance from a one year after initial startup so let's say give me a little benefit that the longest statute of limitations began to run let's say in september of two thousand and eleven and of course it would have been finished in september of two thousand and fifteen which was before you far i have two points to make on that one is that under the future performances exception it does toll the statute of limitations until the period of discovery that's provided in the krieger decision do you see you basically saying that that if there was a defect and you've got one of these things it says that proves defective within twelve months does it really mean twelve months if you if you don't discover it until eight years later let's pull a number of the eight years later you can still rely on the warrant yes that's correct and there's not been any citation to any case that provides otherwise by the pallies in this case they cite to treatise on product liability but i don't see it having any more application that's stronger than the krieger decision this week or is the case you're saying says that yes i'd also like to period my interpretation of krieger is that it was discovery took place after the warranty period had expired and that's it's the manifestation of the defect that occurred in the warranty period yes but that's not what the court actually grabbed onto as the reason for applying to future performance of exception under california commercial code twenty seven twenty five subsection two ok but taking a step back also is a very important issue that just was not address at all by the trial court unfortunately and that's the issue of the replacement coils both of these plaintiffs had bought new replacement coils did you argue to the district or i guess we did i don't know how separate warranty or are you for it for replacement corals are you arguing at there is a implied warranty or what was your argument well i think that goes back to this dispute between twenty nine y and eighty five wide so it was their warranty that's just my question is whether there was a separate warranty on the placement corals are contentious it would fall under twenty nine y or eighty five why but it would be a separate and new warranty because it is a newly purchased product by the consumers in the case ok and your clients were provided with a warranty they were not provided with a warranty and that's another big problem we had bene fired in the constellation of items that happened to them is that it was virtually impossible to even find any of the warranty documents that were out there in fact they didn't come out until the declaration was submitted by the defense so after when you break you can you can look at  we did allege that the replacement coils were put into the both of the plaintiff's units for ms ramos i'm sorry for ms kim it was the case has been dismissed actually pinned down that day but i know that's not really in the record here for right now but it is something we can allege the exact date that it was installed and the exact date that she really saw that there were failures in the same product  unfortunately we are part of the color decision that was submitted by the defense we did notify in our twenty a j letter the case had been argued before the california court of appeal that decision is not yet final but it is they've they've indicated that they're going to publish the decision we do intend to file a petition for review at the end of this month on that issue i think the very unfortunate reality of the koehler decision is in every court that's touched the has described it as a byzantine statute and i think one foresee the court is it makes it even more byzantine and difficult to understand i think it also creates a very stark conflict with two prior cases that are decided by  california one in the fourth district court of appeal and won by the supreme court and those two cases are the greystone case which you cited in our papers where the court broadly held that the right of repair act is applicable to many factures that are which was the case that we urge the trial court to hold off making a ruling on until it was decided but she declined to do so mcmillan made it very clear the exact argument that we had made in the trial court below which is that a ninety seven is a catchall provision so to the manufacturer of the program didn't install or provide heating it well it depends on the way you look at it under they did not do the actual installation and they didn't go in and turn on the machine but b submit that under both mcmillan and under the legislative intent of the right of repair act which it was intended to abrogate oz which was economic loss doctrine case to the extent that there is a violation of the standard there is no economic los doctrine that will apply and we did allege that the defect in the product violated the standard under a ninety seven schedule provision was if the rest of your time free i will thank you very much judge with great care and patience gave the plaintiffs every opportunity to repleat instructing them in many cases how to replace  were thirteen claims that were legs and there were multiple grounds at least three or four grounds for dismissing each of those thirteen claims as time went by plaintiffs have appealed all of those rulings so we have an appeal unlike any i've ever had in my fairly long career in which are about forty separate rulings that have been appealed by the plaint as to each of the thirteen claims the multiple grounds of dismissal were independent and the plaintiffs must demonstrate that the court erd in each of those now this is as the the appellant noted this is one of two cases that these two plaintiffs have brought his purported class actions for manufactured products in the apartments that they bought in points the first is the plaintiffs didn't buy air conditioners they bought apartments and there is no allegation although they were given multiple opportunities to say that there was any any part of the air conditioners that played into the purchase decisions by the plaintiffs in buying their apartments they didn't review any dyken literature they didn't look for diking literature i don't there's no allegation and they even knew what the air conditioners were there is none and as to those claims that were quite a reliance that negates reliance entirely that's true of the warrant the express warranty claim and of the for unfair competition and consumer legal services there is no license and there can be no inference of our lives or presumption of reliance when the plaintiffs have made no obligation whatsoever that that the air conditioners played a role in their purchase decision for the port so classic about the claims that i don't think reliance is really part of those right i agree so and i'm looking really at it one subsection it's not the about heating it's the one about living space air conditioning which has a ninety six i think g five something like that living space air conditioning if any shall be provided in a manner consistent with the size and efficiency design criteria installers or also talks about manufacturers right and that's correct your honor what is it about that language i mean i get the argument when it relates to g four when it says heating should be installed and i get the argument actually grew that i get it shall be provided i'm not getting exactly how it is that we can tell from that that it doesn't apply to manage to to the manufacturing of the product itself first of all when the statute which contains multiple parts  language it has language that is limiting and the language of such subsection five is clearly limiting because it says living space air conditioning if electricity and so this relates to the amount of electricity that the tenant or or the owner would have to pay for in order to cool their apartment i and i'd note also that  me just ask you let me just ask is was there any and again i don't i don't know that anybody's argued about this was there any allegation or let's say argument in the plaintiff's briefs in a district court that the air conditioning wasn't consistent with the size and efficiency design criteria and title twenty four the california code regulations two answers to that first the answer is no and secondly the diking was not responsible for sizing the unit it had no role and that's what the contractor did yeah it was purely the manufacturer second if i could turn to the warranty issues in a number of ways if i understand counsel yes warranties are no longer effective  california is that a fair assessment oh no not at all not under warranty is affected by the terms warranties or contract this warranty was issued whether it was the eighty five or the twenty nine makes no difference for these purposes they are twelve month warranties from the date of installation or eighteen months from the date of shipment whichever occurred first in this case the the units were manufactured as alleged by the plaintiffs in two thousand and six and the the appointments were open to the public in two thousand and eight developer and and i can or the the installer and i can not between either of these plaintiffs and i can and even if there are third party beneficiaries they have no more rights than the party that received  warranty couple of things on first of all plaintiffs argue throughout their briefs that the warranty was hidden that what they're saying is plaintiff's counsel was unable to find it on the internet there's no suggestion that the developer wasn't given the warrant that the party that contracted for the warranty didn't receive it there's no allegation of that whatsoever and there is no allegation or an argument that california law requires warranties wh conditioners were manufactured and installed and started up and run parts of them allegedly corroded the evaporator cause allegedly corroded and failed this is years later and goes to the the point that just a judge a skylane made about a perpetual warranty a very good point years later and the plaintiffs rather than making a warranty claim which they did not do and which is necessary under the contract in order to have a warranty claim that could go to court rather than make a warranty claim had to repair and one of the one of the two putting one in a replacement call the other one has not a leg that she did so that replacement while as her would be an element of damages if if there were any damages economic damages to her and nothing more for a warranty arises when there is a failure within the warranty period and the plaintiff makes a claim as required by the contract by the warranty and the manufacturer or the with the party that gave the warranty fails to comply with the warranty terms that's exactly what happened and krieger during the course of the wine he term the  during the warranty period because there is no cause of action on which to bring a claim and no cause of action on which the statute of limitations may run if the warranty has already been extinguished there as has been pointed out to accept plaintiff's position would be to say that there is no limitation on warranties when there is a warranty for they can be characterized as being for future performance but i with so protean a an appeal i'd like to address the court's questions if there are any others i see that my time is running you was that to the extent something's not listed with the second i mean look in a paragraph fifty three the allegation about the replacement coils is that because of the defective coil in other words the first one she had to replace and so that's kind of consistent with what defense counsel said about it also defective him on the replacing but there's no allegation that your client's quit did replacement quells were defect is there is there an allegation that your client's replacement oils were defective i think that's it that's where we basically say that they had to purchase quote that are also defective and will need replacing and if you look at paragraph seven as well me to trigger that there would have had to have been a failure of them or in there's no allegation of that of the particular plane his replacement but we didn't want to miss the point that we did a legit they are defective and i don't think you have to wait for a failure before  you can pursue a defect claim and would like to turn back to ninety seven the catch all provision what it says is the standards set forth in this chapter are intended to address every function or component of a structure to the extent that a function or component of a structure is not addressed by these standards it shall be actionable if it causes damage and i think you know there's there's a lot up in the air about rorik now both with the california supreme court and these two i think opposing decisions out of gray stone and the color decision and i would request that the court certify the issue for the supreme court to decide on the limited scope of the rockland and  lastly very quickly we actually did allege that there were violations of the sizing and efficiency standards that was in the fourth amendment complaint at paragraphs sixty one through sixty five which is  one thirty fourth or one thirty five and it's the actually the second cause of action in our fourth amended complaint which is that we are one forty four through one forty six in the gist of that is that they can't meet the efficiency standards because all of the refrigerant is