Construction Representative Experience

Transcription

1 Construction Representative Experience Attorneys: Kathleen Strickland Key Issues: Construction Client Type: Defendant Commercial Construction Company Description: Represented the defendant, a commerical construction company, in three separate lawsuits filed in separate counties re: the construction of commercial facilities. Also represented, as the plaintiff, the construction client in commercial dispute with Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, securing over 1.8 million for the client. Result: Successfuly obtained a dismissal of the claims asserted against our client. Attorneys: Kathleen Strickland Key Issues: Construction Client Type: Defendant Construction Company Description: Successfully represented the defendant, a construction company, in a case filed in Colorado claiming $65 million damages in construction delay damages involving the largest mozzarella cheese factory in the US. Result: Our client was dismissed from the case. Attorneys: James C. Hyde, Julian Pardo de Zela Key Issues: Personal Injury; Subcontractor; C.C.P ; C.C.P Venue: San Francisco County Superior Court Client Type: Defendant Subcontractor Description: Defended a subcontractor in a personal injury action whereby the plaintiff alleged catastrophic injury arising from the negligent maintenance and repair of a public intersection.

2 Result: Successfully obtained a dismissal for the subcontractor due to the plaintiff s failure to timely serve the summons and complaint within three years of filing of original complaint. Attorneys: Devin C. Courteau, John A. Koeppel Key Issues: Construction Defect Venue: California Superior Court for the County of Sacramento Client Type: Cross-Defendant Cabinet and Counter Company Description: Thirty homeowners brought an action against the general contractor that constructed the development in which their tract homes were located alleging numerous defects in the construction of various components of the homes, including but not limited to the roof, foundation, windows, and cabinetry. The general contractor filed a cross-complaint naming numerous subcontractors including our client, a subcontractor, who installed the kitchen and bathroom cabinets in the homes. Result: This matter settled on very favorable terms for our client. Attorneys: Gerald G. Knapton Key Issues: Retainer; Alternate Fees; Examples Venue: Los Angeles Client Type: Individual Description: Negotiated the retainer agreement for a legal malpractice suit. The agreement included a number of fee alternatives depending on the results of the case, with 10 examples of how fees would be determined and how the matter could be compromised by the client. The law firm was one of the well-known specialty firms. Result: The agreement was signed by both sides after an exhaustive series of negotiations. Attorneys: James C. Hyde, Julian Pardo de Zela Key Issues: Personal Injury; General Contractor's Affirmative Conduct Venue: San Francisco County Superior Court Client Type: Defendant General Contractor Description: Defended a general contractor in a personal injury action whereby the plaintiff employee of the subcontractor alleged that the injuries sustained were due to the general contractor's affirmative conduct. Result: Successfully obtained complete summary judgment on behalf of the general contractor. The court also awarded recovery of taxable costs to defendant to be paid by plaintiff.

3 Attorneys: James C. Hyde, Julian Pardo de Zela Key Issues: Personal Injury; Privette; General Contractor's Affirmative Conduct Venue: Santa Clara County Superior Court Client Type: Defendant Google Inc. Description: Defended Google Inc. in a personal injury action whereby plaintiff alleged injury arising from the negligent maintenance and repair of an elevator on the owner's premises. Result: Successfully obtained summary judgment on plaintiff's first cause of action for premises liability (negligence), and second cause of action for negligence (under heightened duty of care owed by a common carrier). The trial court found that under the Privette case, Google had not affirmatively contributed to plaintiff's injury, thereby disposing of the first cause of action. The trial court further concluded Google was not operating as a common carrier because the premises was not open to the general public and Google was not receiving a reward for its use. Attorneys: Gregory M. Gentile Key Issues: Negligence; Misrepresentation Venue: Alameda County Superior Court Client Type: Plaintiff Private Client/ Homeowner Description: Successfully represented homeowners in prosecuting their claims for construction defects against a general contractor and failure to disclose by the seller. The clients alleged that the general contractor failed to properly build exterior decks on a custom home, and the seller failed to disclose to the clients' known defects about those decks, including water leaks into the home. The seller and the general contractor aggressively sought to have the clients case dismissed, and brought several dispositive motions just prior to trial. Result: Successfully defeated both motions and obtained a large settlement for our clients. Attorneys: Gregory M. Gentile Key Issues: Construction Defects Venue: Los Angeles County Superior Court Client Type: Defendant Fire Sprinkler Manufacturer Description: Successfully defended a fire sprinkler subcontractor in a large scale construction defect matter at binding arbitration. The claims involved construction defects with respect to a youth athletic club in Southern Los Angeles. The client was a subcontractor who allegedly had improperly installed fire sprinklers as part of the

4 reconstruction of the club. Following an eight-week arbitration, the arbitrator ruled that the claims against the client lacked merit, and the firm obtained a judgment in favor of the client and against the general contractor. Result: Defended the claims and obtained a judgment in favor of our client. Attorneys: Gregory M. Gentile Key Issues: Negligence; Misrepresentation Venue: Alameda County Superior Court Client Type: Plaintiff Private Client/Homeowner Description: Successfully represented homeowners in prosecuting their claims for construction defects against a general contractor and failure to disclose by the seller. Our clients alleged that the general contractor failed to properly build exterior decks on a custom home, and the seller failed to disclose known defects about those decks, including water leaks into the home. The seller and the general contractor aggressively sought to have our clients case dismissed, and brought several dispositive motions just prior to trial. Result: Successfully defeated both motions and obtained a large settlement for the clients. Key Issues: Insurance Coverage; Landlord Tenant Claims Venue: Sonoma County Superior Court Client Type: Defendant Insurance Company Description: Retained as coverage counsel by an insurer to evaluate a landlord tenant litigation. The rental property was in the rural Russian River area. The allegations included mold, retaliatory eviction, failure to repair, damage to personal property, relocation costs and attorney fees. The policy only covered third party property damage, excluded mold and did not cover rent rebate claims. Result: Successfully evaluated the case and assisted in settling the case at an MSC, convincing the insured to contribute to the settlement and dismiss rent claims. We were able to convince the settlement judge and the plaintiff's counsel of coverage issues which would impact the collection of any potential judgment. Key Issues: Action for Property Damage as a Result of Construction at Adjoining Property Venue: Los Angeles County Superior Court Client Type: Plaintiff Property Owner

5 Description: Represented the plaintiff, a property owner of an 11 unit apartment complex, in an action against a neighbor for property damage as a result of the loss of lateral support due to an excavation by a developer building a condominium complex on an adjoining parcel. Result: The case settled after the retention of experts, leaving sufficient funds to repair our client's property damage and pay for the experts that were retained. Key Issues: Construction Defect Venue: No Suit Filed, Claim Made in LA County Client Type: Plaintiff Tenant Description: Advised a tenant in a a dispute with a landlord regarding commercial space. The landlord contracted to construct the tenant's improvements for a first class dance studio. The construction was late and performed in a substandard manner, impairing the tenant's ability to use the premises. Result: The tenant is continuing to negotiate with the landlord. The tenant retained a real estate lawyer to take over the negotiation. Our role to evaluate the construction defect was completed. Key Issues: Property Damage Venue: US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Client Type: Defendant Window Manufacturer Description: Addressed class action allegations against a window manufacturer in an action for property damage in a multi-home subdivision arising out of an alleged product defect. The plaintiffs sought to expand the litigation into a state wide class action for all homes with the same manufactured window assembly. Result: The court denied class certification. The plaintiffs have yet to appeal. If an appeal is forthcoming we will assist in preparation of appellate briefs. Key Issues: Construction Defects Venue: Washoe County, Nevada Client Type: Defendant Insurer Description: Acted as coverage counsel in a litigation involving construction defects at a 58 home subdivision in Reno, Nevada. Result: The litigation settled in stages. Forty-five homes settled in September 2006, and the remaining thirteen

6 Result: The litigation settled in stages. Forty-five homes settled in September 2006, and the remaining thirteen homes settled between September 2006 and September Key Issues: Property Damage; Fire Loss; Construction Defect Venue: Los Angeles County Superior Court Client Type: Defendant Insurance Carrier Description: Represented a first party insurer in a dispute involving the adjustment of a fire loss at a high end Beverly Hills restaurant. The insured alleged that the carrier recommended a contractor who improperly performed the construction, resulting a delayed reopening of the restaurant, and resulting loss of return patrons. The insured also contended the insurer failed to pay the advertising expense necessary to the reopen. The insurer contended that the payments were timely, the contractor was an independent contractor of the insured and that the construction delays were due to the City and the permit process. Result: The case settled for a confidential amount. Key Issues: Architects; Construction; Design Venue: Los Angeles Superior Court Client Type: Defendant Residential Home Architect/Designer Description: Defended a home architect/designer in an action for construction defects at a multi million dollar single family residence. We represented the architect that designed the residence. Issues included the vicarious liability of the architect for the structural engineering and the errors of the framing contractor and general contractor in failing to build to the approved plans and specs. The architect was alleged to be responsible for the failure of others including city inspectors to note the failure to construct to the approved design drawings. Result: The case settled for a confidential amount, with the insurer paying the settlement, waiving the deductible and paying additional amounts to settle the insurance coverage action prosecuted by different counsel. Attorneys: Kevin P. Cody Key Issues: Which Party Breached $150,000 Written Contract for Landscaping Work? Did Either Party Suffer Damages? Venue: Alameda County Superior Court, California Client Type: Plaintiff Landscape Architectural and Construction Firm Description: Our client, a landscape architectural/construction firm, sued the defendant and the defendant cross-complained against our client, with both parties claiming that the other breached a landscape construction

7 contract. Our client claimed that the defendant failed to pay according to the terms of the contract. The defendant claimed that he was current on all progress payments and that our client's work was deficient. Result: After the defendant rejected our client's offer requiring both parties to walk away from the matter in exchange for mutual dismissals and insisted that the client pay defendant $70,000, the matter was tried to the court. The court found in favor of our client and awarded our client $30,000 in damages and all costs of litigation. Attorneys: Kevin P. Cody Key Issues: Did the Client Breach a Contract with Homeowners to Build the Homeowners' Home? Were Change Order Costs Excessive and/or Unapproved? Was the Project Unnecessarily Delayed? Was the Construction Deficient? Venue: Binding Arbitration Client Type: Plaintiff Developer/ Builder Description: Our client, a developer/builder, filed for binding arbitration after his clients, homeowners, failed to pay $300,000 still owed on the construction of the homeowner's $1,600,000 home. The homeowners had boasted that they would get the home for $300,000 less than it cost the client to build, asserting that the the project was unnecessarily delayed, change orders were excessive and/or unapproved and the construction was deficient. Our client disputed the homeowners' claims. Result: After numerous attempts to get the homeowners to mediate, all without success, the matter went to binding arbitration and a panel of three arbitrators found in favor of our client, with the recovery being in excess of $500,000. Our client was awarded not only the $300,000 still owed on the home, but also all attorney's fees and litigation costs. Attorneys: Kevin P. Cody Key Issues: Did the Client Trespass on Plaintiff's Property? What Damages, if any, did Plaintiffs Sustain? Venue: Santa Clara County Superior Court Client Type: Defendant Electrical Contractor Description: Our client, an electrical subcontractor, placed temporary power poles across the plaintiff's property to provide electrical power to a residential construction project being built by the defendant, a developer. The plaintiffs maintained the placement of the poles constituted a trespass on their property. Our client argued that the placement of the poles was in fact authorized by a PG&E easement. Result: After extensive litigation and settlement negotiations in which the plaintiffs were offered in excess of $50,000, the matter was tried to a jury. Just before closing arguments, the plaintiffs dismissed our client in exchange for a waiver of costs.

8 Attorneys: Kevin P. Cody Key Issues: Were the Clients Negligent in Their Supervision of a Construction Project? Was the Clients' Negligence the Cause of Plaintiff's Injuries? Was Plaintiff's Injury the Result of a "Peculiar Risk"? What Were the Extent of Plaintiff's Damages? Venue: Orange County Superior Court Client Type: Defendant Engineering Firm and Contractor Description: The plaintiff sustained life-threatening internal injuries when a water truck went out of control careening down a hill and struck the plaintiff's vehicle broadside. The plaintiff alleged that our clients, a project engineering firm and construction firm, were negligent in instructing the water truck driver to fill up with water at the top of a hill rather than at a location not requiring the heavily-loaded truck to descend a steep hill. The plaintiff also alleged that the reason the hill-top location was selected is that our clients were illegally drawing water without a permit. Our clients argued that the accident was the result of the water truck driver's failure to properly operate the truck and/or the failure of the driver's employers to train him in the operation of the truck. Result: After settling with the truck driver and his employer and after multiple settlement conferences in which the total offer to plaintiff was $2,000,000, the matter was tried to a jury and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was awareded in excess of $3,000,000. Attorneys: Devin C. Courteau, John A. Koeppel Key Issues: Construction Defect Venue: California Superior Court for the County of Sacramento Client Type: Cross-Defendant Alarm Installation Company Description: Twelve homeowners brought an action against the general contractor that constructed the development in which their tract homes were located, alleging numerous defects in the construction of various components of the homes, including but not limited to the roof, foundation, electrical, cabinetry and windows. The general contractor filed a cross-complaint naming numerous subcontractors including our client, the subcontractor that pre-wired the homes for and/or installed alarm systems. Our client's work was alleged to have contributed to water damage in several homes. Result: This matter settled on very favorable terms for our client. Key Issues: Real Estate, Breach of Fiduciary Duty

9 Client Type: Defendant Real Estate Manager Description: Currently defending a real estate manager in a case in which the parties entered into an operating agreement for a real estate project that is only partially developed. The bank has foreclosed on the property. The plaintiff alleges that the mismanagement by the defendant LLC managers caused the loss of the property. Attorneys: Nicole S. Healy Key Issues: Breach of contract Venue: Marin County Superior Court Client Type: California-based manufacturer Description: Represented California-based manufacturer (who was not a party to the lawsuit) in dispute over installation of client s product in transportation district s facility; general contractor had sued project owner for payments due, and our client, who was also owed substantial amount, voluntarily agreed to engage in mediation. Result: Case settled Attorneys: Nicole S. Healy, Todd A. Roberts Key Issues: Breach of contract; cross-claims for intentional interference with contract, and intentional interference with prospect Venue: San Mateo County Superior Court Client Type: California-based manufacturer Description: Represented California-based manufacturer in dispute over proposal to install client s product in city s transportation facility; city did not accept our client s product as a substitute for the specified product and general contractor sued our client for the difference between its product and specified product supplied by its competitor; our client cross-claimed against the city for intentional interference with contract, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Result: Case settled Attorneys: Stephan A. Barber Key Issues: Valley Fever; cocci fungal spores; coccimeningitis; disseminated cocci; grading; excavation Venue: Madera County Superior Court Client Type: Construction Contractor Description: Plaintiff was an ecologist working for an environmental consulting firm in Berkeley, CA retained by the Madera Irrigation District. Plaintiff's employer contracted with defendant contractor to construct vernal pools at the Madera Ranch in Summer, Vernal pools are temporary habitiats for certain species of animals and

10 at the Madera Ranch in Summer, Vernal pools are temporary habitiats for certain species of animals and were constructed to take the place of habitats that were being destroyed by a water storage project. Plaintiff alleged she was exposed to airborne cocci fungal spores in the soil where the pools were constructed and that defendant was negligent in the manner in which it constructed the pools and how it controlled dust from its grading and excavation activities. Plaintiff claimed that this exposure caused her to contract a very serious case of "Valley Fever" or Coccidioidomycosis. Plaintiff claimed through her physicians that she had disseminated cocci with fungal infections in her lungs and coccimeningitis, that she was disabled from her employment, and that she would need to continue taking antifungal medications indefinitely and have multiple follow up blood tests and lumbar punctures. Result: The jury found in a 10-2 verdict that Clark Bros. was not negligent. Attorneys: John A. Koeppel Key Issues: Construction Defect; Real Estate; Fraud; Conspiracy; Professional Liability; Architects Venue: Sonoma County Superior Court Client Type: Defendant Architect Consultant Description: A real estate developer developed a 108 unit apartment complex and sold it to a real estate investment company, Company A. The real estate investment company hired our architectural consultant client to perform a due diligence inspection and report. Within two years, real estate investment Company A sold the apartment complex to real estate investment Company B. Plaintiff, real estate investment Company B sued the developer, the original general contractor and subcontractors, real estate investment Company A as seller and our architectural consultant client for construction defects, negligence, breach of contract and fraud and conspiracy. Result: The case was settled for a fraction of the plaintiff's original demand. Attorneys: John A. Koeppel Key Issues: Personal Injury; Construction Venue: Santa Clara County Superior Court; Unlimited Jurisdiction Client Type: Defendant Manufacturer Description: Defended a manufacturer in a case involving a permanent brain injury to a 40-year old chemical engineer who was working on site, at our client's plant, to install a new food processing line. The plaintiff fell approximately 10 feet to a concrete floor, striking his head. The plaintiffs included the victim, his employer and the employer's workers compensation carrier. The plaintiff also sued the steel fabricator responsible for the construction of the platform. To prepare for the trial, safety, economic and medical experts were retained. In addition, a mediator began to meet with the defendants at regular intervals to monitor the process of discovery, analyze prospective settlement negotiations and ensure the proper scheduling of a trial. Result: Our client paid 20% of a multi-million settlement.

11