REPRESENTATIVE CASES

Construction

  

• A matter involving alleged construction defects arising out of the demolition of an old pool and spa and the construction of a new pool, spa, deck, foundations and barbeque at a high-end home. The plaintiffs alleged the pool, spa and deck were defectively constructed which forced them to tear it all out and rebuild all of it. They also sought loss of use damages. The defense disputed that a complete removal and replacement was required and disputed the loss of use damages. The pool contractor also pursued a cross-complaint against its subcontractor and there were insurance coverage issues between the parties and their carriers.  

• A matter arising out of the construction of a hotel.  The general contractor filed a breach of contract/delay claim against one of its subcontractors alleging that they needed to supplement the work of the subcontractor and ultimately replace the subcontractor, causing it to incur 7 figure damages, including liquidated damages owed to the owner for delay.  The action also included significant coverage disputes, which were mediated as part of the settlement.   

• A construction defect matter involving 21 single-family homes and typical stucco, plumbing, roof, structural and water intrusion issues. However, the developer only had legal liability based on a prior bankruptcy finding as to a small number of the homes. As a result, the plaintiff pursued the subcontractors directly for the other homes. Settlements were achieved between the plaintiff and developer and the majority of the subcontractors and between the plaintiff and the developer. Further settlement discussions continued as to the remaining subcontractors. 

• Plaintiff general contractor alleged they were entitled to unpaid retention arising out of the construction of a hotel. The defendant hotel disputed that they owed any money as they claimed the project was delayed in completion thereby entitling the owner to liquidated damages pursuant to the Prime contract, and that certain work was performed defectively and therefore required repairs in excess of the amounts owed. The owner therefore sought monies in excess of the amounts claimed by the general contractor. The general contractor had also cross-complained against the relevant subcontractors for the alleged defective work and delays. 

• A construction defect matter arising out of a remodel project in the Hollywood Hills.  The general contractor defendant died after completion of the project so the plaintiff homeowners pursued the matter pursuant to the Probate Code against the defendant's insurance carrier.  The defendant's insurance carrier raised significant coverage defenses and also disputed the alleged defects and damages. 

• Plaintiff general contractor claimed defendant homeowner failed to pay for remodeling work performed at the defendant’s home. The defendant homeowner contended that the work was defective and had yet to be completed.
  
• Plaintiff subcontractor and the general contractor sued the defendant property owner for breach of contract and to enforce a mechanics lien for failure to pay for their work during the new construction of a single family home. The defendant claimed the subcontractor and general contractor overcharged for the work, caused delay to the project and the work was defective, and therefore disputed any monies were owed and sought additional damages.
  
• Plaintiff contended that the defendant damaged its underground utilities while performing work on the 5 freeway expansion project, including violation of the specific code requirements related to underground construction. The defendant sought indemnity from its subcontractor for failure to properly perform its work resulting in the damages to the utilities. The subcontractor contended it performed its work pursuant to the applicable plans and specifications and the defendant was solely at fault for the damages.
  
• A construction defect matter involving multiple single-family tract homes in Contra Costa. The plaintiffs claimed a variety of construction defects, including water intrusion issues resulting in alleged damages. The developer/general contractor defendant disputed the nature and extent of the damages. In addition to resolving the homes in the litigation, a settlement was also achieved on behalf of additional homeowners in the same project which were part of a pre-litigation, SB 800 claim. Both settlements were reached in one half day of mediation total.
  
• A construction defect matter arising from a remodeling project at the plaintiff’s high-end beach house. The plaintiff claimed that the remodel work performed by the general contractor and its subcontractors resulted in alleged defects, including significant framing, roof, window, and slider issues which led to the firing of the general contractor. There were also significant coverage issues for the general contractor and coverage counsel also actively participated in the mediation. The defense claimed the issues were the result of design issues and disputed the nature of the alleged defects and the scope and cost of repair.
  
• A breach of contract/delay claim matter arising out of a high-rise apartment building and the construction of a high-rise hotel. Both parties claimed the other breached their contract and owed the other significant alleged damages for remediation, delay and cost to repair damages as well as liquidated damages.
  
• A breach of contract/delay claim matter between two contractors arising out of the construction of a large retail project. One party contended that they were not paid in full for their work at the project and the other party contended that the work was not performed timely and as a result they incurred delay damages and were forced to supplement the unpaid party with a separate contractor, which resulted in charges in excess of the amounts owed. As a result, both parties sought damages from each other.
  
• A pre-litigation, SB 800, construction defect matter involving multiple single-family tract homes in the Central Valley. The plaintiffs claimed a variety of construction defects, including water intrusion issues resulting in alleged damages. The developer/general contractor defendant disputed the nature and extent of the damages.
  
• A construction defect/breach of contract matter arising out of a high end, single-family home remodel in Bel Air. The contractor contended they were owed money for its work on the project and the homeowners contended the work was performed defectively thereby entitling them to repair cost damages as well as liquidated damages in excess of the amounts owed for the work.
  
• Defendant retained Plaintiff to construct a new industrial warehouse. Plaintiff claimed they were constructively terminated due to defective plans and specifications and monies owed. As a result, Plaintiff sought approximately $400,000 from Defendant. Defendant claimed the Plaintiff failed to construct the building as contracted, thereby entitling them to delay damages because Plaintiff abandoned the project, and sought approximately $600,00 on its cross-complaint.
  
• Matter arose out of Plaintiff’s flood damage remodel at Defendant’s apartment building. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant failed to pay for the work. Defendant claimed they paid the broker Co-Defendant who arranged for the work and that the Co-Defendant should pay for the damages. The Co-Defendant also had an additional claim for monies owed by Plaintiff.
  
• Plaintiff contended that Defendant built a wall on their property thereby taking approximately 144 square feet of their property. Plaintiff sought to have the wall taken down and moved to the actual property line and related damages, including nuisance and trespass. Defendant contended she relied on an improper survey and sought indemnity from the Cross-Defendant land surveyor.
  
• Individual homeowner single family tract home matters v. Developer, General Contractor and Subcontractors involving alleged construction defects involving all aspects of construction, from below-grade to roof, including windows, stucco, sheet metal, waterproofing, finish work, landscaping, concrete, plumbing, electrical, drywall, drainage, structural and civil claims.
  
• H.O.A. v. Developer, General Contractor and Subcontractors related to common areas including slopes, drainage, retaining walls, athletic facilities, clubhouses, restaurants involving alleged construction defects involving all aspects of construction, from below-grade to roof, including windows, stucco, sheet metal, waterproofing, finish work, landscaping, concrete, plumbing, electrical, drywall, drainage, structural and civil claims.
  
• Multi-party construction defect matters arising out of shopping centers, hospitals, prisons, hotels, casinos, dormitories, schools and high rise construction projects, including loss of use, loss of revenue, attorney fee claims and waiver of subrogation issues.
  
• Multi-party construction defect matters arising of high rise construction projects, including mixed-use matters.
  
• Multi-party construction defect matters involving pool construction.
  
• Multi-party construction defect matters arising out of common areas including slopes, clubhouses, sports fields, bleachers, artificial turf, pools and tennis courts.
  
• Multi-party construction defect matters arising out of public entity construction of offices, college buildings and facilities, freeways and roads, including loss of use, loss of revenue, attorney fee claims and waiver of subrogation issues.
  
• Multi-party construction defect matters arising out of shoring and below grade construction issues.
  
• Multi-party construction defect matters arising out of high end custom and specialty home construction.
  
• Contract disputes during and after construction.
  
• Delay claims related to commercial construction.
  
• Course of construction issues, including mechanics liens and stop notices.
  
• Property line disputes between neighbors.
  
• Improper removal and trimming of trees on private property.
  
• Improper excavation issues resulting in slope failure.
  
• Related Special Master experience including C.M.O./Pre-Trial Order disputes, implementation, management and discovery issues.
  
• Multiple matters involving standard A.I.A. agreements and provisions.