Case Explained: BOHANNON, ET AL. V. MARTIN MCDONALD DEVELOPMENT, INC., ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-07-01 Docket: 3:22-cv-04422-RFL The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims against Martin McDonald Development, Inc. (MMD) but reversed the dismissal of claims against Allen Martin Construction, Inc. (AMC), remanding the case for further proceedings regarding AMC. The court applied California’s statute of repose under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 337.15, which bars construction-defect actions commenced more than ten years after substantial completion and is not subject to equitable tolling. Regarding MMD, the court held that relation back under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c)(1)(A) could not save the claims because California law does not permit equitable tolling to extend a statute of repose for correcting a misnamed party. Conversely, regarding AMC, the court determined that § 337.15 does not conflict with Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 474, which allows plaintiffs to sue unknown defendants by pseudonym and later amend to identify their true names. The court reasoned that relation back under § 474 harmonizes with the statute of repose because it requires both the claim and the defendant (albeit under a pseudonym) to be identified within the repose period. The court also affirmed the district court’s rejection of willful-misconduct and fraudulent-concealment exceptions, finding the plaintiffs failed to allege facts with particularity showing defendants knew or should have known construction created a serious risk of harm. Finally, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying leave to amend for a fifth time, as the proffered facts would still fail to meet the scienter requirements for those exceptions. On remand, the district court must analyze whether the naming of AMC was permissible under § 474. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.