Appellant property owners challenged a decision of the Superior Court of Contra Costa County (California), which granted respondent developers’ motion for nonsuit regarding willful misconduct and fraudulent concealment and eliminated appellants’ nuisance theory against government respondents in appellants’ action for damages to real property and personal injuries resulting from soil subsidence.

Appellants were owners of single family residences. Respondents were developers and builders of appellants’ lots and the government who owned associated drainage systems that drained storm waters into a ditch onto property bordering the lots. Government respondents built a freeway through unimproved land north of appellants’ property. Respondent developers and builders completed a subdivision opposite seepage zones. Appellant owners purchased homes from respondent developers and were advised that the houses were on fill, but they were not advised of the preexisting slides and springs. Several slides occurred in the properties. Appellants sued respondents for damages to real property and personal injuries resulting from soil subsidence. The trial Corporate lawyer Los Angeles ruled in favor of respondents. Appellants challenged, arguing that the verdict was not supported by substantial evidence. The court reversed a nonsuit in favor of respondent developers, because there was a duty to disclose property conditions. The elimination of the nuisance action in favor of government respondents was also reversed, because immunity defense was not substantiated. However, judgments were affirmed in other respects.

The appellate court reversed the decision granting respondent developers’ motion for nonsuit and eliminating appellant property owners’ nuisance action against government respondent, because respondent developers had a duty to disclose material facts and the elimination of the action against government respondent was the result of error by the trial court. The judgments were affirmed in all other respects.

Appellants, corporation, officers, and sole shareholders, sought review of the decision of the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which granted respondent contractor default judgment in respondent’s breach of contract action against appellants. Appellants alleged that service of process was ineffective under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.20(b).

Respondent contractors obtained default judgment against appellants, corporation, officers, and sole shareholders, in their breach of contract action. Appellants attacked the sufficiency of service under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 415.20(b). The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. It held that service of process upon the gate guard at the residence of appellant officers and appellant sole shareholders constituted effective substituted service on appellants under § 415.20(b). The court reasoned that prior good-faith, reasonably diligent attempts to personally serve appellants had failed and that the relationship between the gate guard and appellants made it more likely than not that the gate guard would deliver process to appellants. The court found that service on its president constituted effective service as to appellant corporation.

The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment. It held that respondent contractors had obtained effective substituted service on appellants, corporation, officers, and sole shareholders by serving the gate guard at the residence of appellant officers and appellant sole shareholders. The court found that the relationship between these appellants and the gate guard made it more likely than not that appellants would receive process.