Timothy L. Pierce

Professional Overview

Tim Pierce is the managing partner and one of the founders of the firm.

Tim’s practice is devoted almost exclusively to the construction industry. He works with clients from the inception of a project and the formation of contracts through the resolution of claims in litigation, looking for solutions to construction disputes that are efficient and cost effective. Tim holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in mechanical engineering and draws on this background to distill complex technical issues into clear, persuasive narratives for judges, arbitrators, and juries. Because he speaks the language of the engineers, contractors, and design professionals involved in a project, he quickly identifies the issues that actually drive a dispute, works effectively with technical experts, and gives clients practical advice grounded in how projects are built.

Tim has extensive trial experience in construction matters, having tried 17 cases to verdict and completed a similar number of arbitration hearings. The trials range in length from three to twelve weeks and include two verdicts in favor of his clients in excess of $30 million. One such verdict resulted in a $37 million judgment on behalf of a contractor on a power plant project, one of the top ten California jury trial verdicts that year. He also successfully defended a contractor in a false claims case brought by a public agency in which a unanimous jury found in favor of his client, which recovered its attorneys’ fees under the California False Claims Act.

Tim’s construction experience includes prosecuting and defending construction contract, construction defect, and design defect claims on behalf of owners, contractors, and design professionals on both private and public projects. He has also assisted contractors with bid protests and MBE and DBE matters.

In addition to his construction law practice, Tim focuses on insurance and risk management issues in the construction industry, with an emphasis on representing insureds to maximize coverage for construction claims.

Representative Matters

• Represented a subcontractor in a four-week arbitration against an international general contractor’s claims of delay and deficient work. The client recovered on its own claims of delay and impact and defeated the general contractor’s claims.
• Represented a general contractor on a major transit terminal project in San Francisco, California, helping it resolve more than $200 million of collective claims between the owner and the contractors. Tried the case against the electrical subcontractor and recovered a $20 million judgment for the client, together with a defense verdict on the subcontractor’s cross-complaint.
• Represented a contractor in a Board of Contract Appeals trial against a federal agency owner on a levee restoration project in Sacramento County.
• Represented a drilling subcontractor on a pass-through claim against a state transportation agency, recovering $8 million for the subcontractor in the final arbitration award before the Office of Administrative Hearings.
• Represented a contractor in a Board of Contract Appeals trial against a federal agency owner on a creek restoration project in Orange County.
• Represented an owner in arbitration in a dispute with an international contractor over claims of delay and poor workmanship.
• Obtained a published California Court of Appeal decision holding that a contractor client was not liable for a disgorgement claim under Business and Professions Code section 7107 and establishing new law on the application of the statute of limitations to disgorgement claims. Eisenberg Vill. of the L.A. Jewish Home for the Aging v. Suffolk Constr. Co., 53 Cal. App. 5th 1201 (2020).
• Represented a condominium developer in a private arbitration involving cross-claims by the developer and its contractor arising out of the developer’s termination of the contractor for breaches of contract, including failure to complete the project on time and free from defects. A bifurcated arbitration hearing resulted in a finding that the developer had properly terminated the contractor, and the developer was awarded approximately $1.8 million plus accrued interest.
• Assisted a general contractor in reaching a multimillion-dollar  settlement on a hotel renovation project in Santa Monica, California, resolving the claim efficiently and with minimal litigation expense.
• Represented a drywall and interior finishes subcontractor in a suit concerning the rebuild of a major public hospital. The public owner contracted with a general contractor to build the project, and the general contractor subcontracted with the client. The subcontractor contended that it had provided labor, materials, equipment, and services for which it had not been paid and had satisfied all conditions of the subcontract. It also sought prompt payment penalties for untimely progress payments and delayed release of retention, as well as additional compensation for acceleration impacts to its work. The parties settled on the courthouse steps for more than 95% of the $16.0 million claimed, with the public owner agreeing to pay the majority of the settlement.
• Represented a contractor joint venture as plaintiff in a contract dispute with a public water agency over construction of a $140 million dam raise project, the tallest U.S. dam raise project using roller compacted concrete. The case concerned whether the joint venture or the agency was responsible for the extra costs, delay, and impact costs necessary to complete the project. The agency also counterclaimed for breach of contract and violation of the California False Claims Act. The jury returned a verdict in excess of $30 million for the joint venture, excluding interest, found in the joint venture’s favor on the agency’s breach of contract counterclaim, and the agency failed to prove its false claims cross-complaint. The parties later settled all claims for $36.5 million to the joint venture, and the agency dismissed its false claims cross-complaint with prejudice.
• Represented a general contractor hired by a school district to develop and construct a $70 million project involving multiple buildings, recreational fields, and other work. The district failed to pay all amounts due under the contract, including amounts owed for extra work, delays, and inefficiencies for which it was responsible. The contractor submitted a Government Code claim for damages in excess of $1 million, which the district rejected, and then filed suit for breach of contract, prompt payment penalties, and attorneys’ fees. After years of no movement by the district and against the threat of prompt payment penalties, the matter settled.
• Defended a contractor joint venture against a $2 million claim by a subcontractor on a bridge construction project in Santa Cruz, California. Following trial, the court dismissed the subcontractor’s primary $1 million claim, and the jury awarded the subcontractor less than two pretrial Code of Civil Procedure section 998 offers. The subcontractor appealed and the client cross-appealed; the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s ruling on the client’s licensing defense and directed the trial court to reconsider it. In light of that ruling, the matter settled on terms favorable to the client.
• Represented a general contractor that constructed a new federal medical facility in Menlo Park, California. The contractor had engaged a supplier to provide modular units for the project; the supplier delivered the units late and the units suffered significant rain damage. After trial, the jury awarded the contractor $1.2 million in damages, and the court found that at least $1 million of the judgment was covered by the supplier’s insurance, awarding fees, costs, and interest for a final judgment of approximately $1.3 million. On appeal, the Court of Appeal issued a published decision upholding the trial and jury findings in the contractor’s favor and reversing an offset ruling that had reduced the recovery by approximately $300,000, increasing the final amended judgment to nearly $2 million. Global Modular, Inc. v. Kadena Pac., Inc., 15 Cal. App. 5th 127 (2017).
• Represented an electrical subcontractor under a $1.2 million contract to procure and install major electrical components on a 250 megawatt solar power plant in the Mojave Desert. The client provided more than $1 million of extra work, which the general contractor refused to pay. The matter was submitted to arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce under the contract’s dispute resolution provisions. After mediation and continued pressure, an agreement in principle was reached, but the general contractor was unable to complete it because of financial difficulties, and a settlement was instead reached with the mechanics lien release bond surety on more favorable terms, concluding the arbitration.
• Represented a general contractor that performed substantial upgrades to a wastewater treatment plant in Lancaster, California, on a project valued at approximately $150 million. The contractor completed the work successfully but was delayed by various issues, including design changes and errors for which the owner was responsible. The firm filed a complaint to recover more than $30 million in damages and defended against cross-complaints by the public agency owner and an electrical subcontractor. After jury selection, the case settled and the contractor received an eight-figure settlement from the agency.
• Represented a school district that constructed a new middle school facility in Washington State. After completion, the general contractor and various subcontractors asserted claims for extra work and impacts totaling approximately $7 million. Timothy worked with the district to resolve the claims through mediation and to assess potential indemnity claims against the project designers, and the case settled favorably.
• Represented a contractor that constructed a fiber optic cable installation in Alaska. Claims were later made that the installation was not within the designated right of way, and litigation followed in Anchorage among the parties to the cable installation and the parties to a pipeline installation. Claims of approximately $3 to $5 million were asserted against the client, and the matter was resolved through mediation on favorable terms.
• Represented a general contractor that was not paid the full value of its work after constructing a new school facility for a school district. The firm filed an arbitration claim for the unpaid amounts, which proceeded to a two-week hearing. After the demand for arbitration was filed, the contractor received more than $1 million in additional contract payments, and it was awarded prompt payment penalties and attorneys’ fees in the arbitration award, recovering the full amount awarded.
• Represented a general contractor that constructed a wastewater treatment plant upgrade for a state agency. The agency refused to pay retention and outstanding claims for extra work and delays, and the case was pending in an Office of Administrative Hearings arbitration. Timothy served as lead counsel at mediation, after which the agency agreed to settle for $3.7 million, roughly 75 percent of the amount the client would have sought in arbitration.
• Defended a general contractor against construction defect claims originally filed in state court. The firm successfully moved the case into arbitration and achieved a settlement payment to the owner equal to the attorneys’ fees the owner had expended pursuing its claims, approximately 15 percent of the amount claimed. The settlement was paid in full by subcontractors and the client’s insurers.
• Represented a supplier in a claim to recover amounts unpaid for air pollution control systems and for slander, against a defendant that counterclaimed for $1 million. Following a three-week jury trial, the client was awarded the full contract balance plus interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs, totaling more than $1.2 million, and the defendant was denied any recovery on its counterclaim.
• Represented an international contractor in an arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce involving a power plant it constructed in Latin America. The claimant insurer brought a subrogation action to recover $10 million for damages arising from an equipment failure at the project. The case was resolved within months of the firm’s engagement when the claimant was persuaded to dismiss rather than face a motion to dismiss and a request for fees. The case, venued in Miami under Florida law, was dismissed without any settlement payment by the client.
• Represented a general contractor in a payment dispute arising out of improvements it constructed on a wastewater treatment plant for a public utility agency. At the conclusion of the project, the contractor had not been paid approximately $8 million for its work, and the agency counterclaimed for violation of the False Claims Act. The contractor defeated that claim on summary judgment, and the case settled approximately two weeks before trial for roughly $6 million. When the agency refused to pay a portion of the settlement, the contractor obtained an order enforcing the settlement agreement and recovered its fees for that effort.
• Represented a contractor that constructed repairs to a state aqueduct and incurred substantial overruns because of defective design documents furnished by the state agency owner. The agency refused to pay retention and outstanding claims for extra work and delays, and the case was pending in an Office of Administrative Hearings arbitration. After a mediation, the agency agreed to settle for more than $1 million, roughly 85% of the amount the client would have sought in arbitration, with fees incurred amounting to less than 10% of the total recovery.
• Represented a developer in a construction contract dispute with a subcontractor on a new high-end shopping center in downtown San Francisco. Of the $8.4 million claimed by the subcontractor, the arbitrators denied all but $1 million, which was undisputed, deemed the client the prevailing party, and awarded it costs, attorneys’ fees, expert fees, and arbitration fees.
• Represented a prime contractor in a contract dispute with a subcontractor on a federal exchange project. The matter was tried to a jury in Riverside County Superior Court, which returned a favorable verdict for the client on its affirmative claim and against the subcontractor on its cross-complaint, and the client was awarded attorneys’ fees and costs.
• Represented a general contractor in prosecuting a claim for unpaid work on a hospital renovation project. The client received an award of $5.3 million after a three-week arbitration hearing, more than 90% of the amount claimed.
• Represented a subcontractor in a claim against a prime contractor on a federal prison renovation project in Los Angeles. After a three-week jury trial in Los Angeles Superior Court, the client obtained a $2.4 million judgment, including recovery of its attorneys’ fees and prompt payment penalties.
• Successfully defended a contractor against a claim by a public agency under the California False Claims Act, obtaining a 12-0 verdict in favor of the client after a five-week jury trial, together with an award of the client’s attorneys’ fees. The appellate court upheld the defense verdict, and total recovery was approximately $20 million. This was the first jury case in California to find against a public agency in a construction false claims case.
• Represented a contractor in claims against an engineer-procure-construct contractor on a power plant project in Bakersfield, California, obtaining a $37.1 million judgment after a 10-week jury trial.
• Defended a contractor in construction defect litigation and assisted the client in maximizing additional insured benefits to fund a multimillion-dollar settlement from subcontractor policies.
• Negotiated an $18 million settlement on behalf of a general contractor in a Board of Contract Appeals claim against a federal agency owner arising out of the construction of a federal courthouse in Orange County.
• Successfully prosecuted a contractor’s claim against a state transportation agency, including a successful appeal from the original arbitration award that resulted in a full recovery.
• Represented a paving contractor in defense of claims pertaining to concrete runway construction at a major international airport, including defense of federal grand jury investigations under the federal False Claims Act. No indictment was returned.