Court Opinion

ID: 9724043
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:42:22.625317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:54.674119
License: Public Domain

SONENSHINE, Acting P. J.
In its petition for rehearing, the City of Orange contends our opinion contains a misstatement of material fact. It maintains that Structural Steel “expressly and affirmatively stated that it was Not relying upon or asserting an estoppel theory in its Opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment or on appeal.” Thus, it argues a rehearing is required because our opinion is based on an issue which has neither been raised nor briefed. The city is wrong.
Indeed, respondent’s brief belies this contention. The city in its brief asserted, “In reality, Appellant’s alleged facts speak to an estoppel argument under the guise of a tolling argument. . . . Appellant sets forth facts which speak to potential estoppel, yet Appellant refers to those facts as relating to its tolling argument, apparently in an attempt to steer around the clear holding in the A. J. Setting Co. case which unquestionably provides that not even the estoppel theory can be used to extend the time limitations set forth in the Stop Notice Codes.” Earlier in its brief, the city stated, “Appellant’s [tolling] argument is essentially a different breed of the same animal of estoppel which cannot be used to extend the time limitations set forth in the Stop Notice Codes. A. J. Setting Co., supra.”
In both instances, the city acknowledged that the issue before the trial court, and on appeal, is whether estoppel could be asserted to extend the applicable statute of limitations. For the city to now contend otherwise is at best disingenuous.
Crosby, J., and Moore, J., concurred.