FORCE FRAMING, INC v. CHINATRUST BANK
Filed 8/31/10
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
FORCE FRAMING, INC.,
Plaintiff
and Appellant,
v.
CHINATRUST BANK (U.S.A.),
Defendant
and Respondent.
E048688
(Super.Ct.No.
RIC487369)
OPINION
APPEAL
from the Superior Court
of Riverside
County. Bernard Schwartz,
Judge. Reversed.
Carno
& Carlton, Andrew C. Carlton, Anna M. Carno and Princess M. Cooper for
Plaintiff and Appellant.
Luce,
Forward, Hamilton & Scripps, Steven S. Wall and Jeffrey A. Feasby for
Defendant and Respondent.
Abdulaziz,
Grossbart & Rudman, Bruce David Rudman and Sam K. Abdulaziz for Roofing
Contractors Association of California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff
and Appellant.
Edward
Alberola for Southern California Contractors Association as Amici Curiae on
behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Kamine
Collings & Phelps, Michaelbrent Collings, Bernard Kamine, Marcia Kamine and
Daniel J. Phelps for Engineering Contractors' Association as Amici Curiae on
behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant.
Force
Framing, Inc. (Force Framing) sued Chinatrust Bank (U.S.A.), Corp. (Chinatrust)
for a bonded stop notice.[1] (Civ. Code, § 3083.) The trial court granted Chinatrust's
cross-motion for summary judgment
(Code Civ. Proc., § 437c), because Force Framing served the statutorily
required 20-day preliminary notice (Civ. Code, § 3097) on East
West Bank, not Chinatrust.
Force Framing contends that the trial court erred by granting
Chinatrust's cross-motion for summary judgment because East West
Bank qualified as the â€
Lean view · served in 1 ms
· full site view