AAA Arbitration (2021). Representing owner in dispute with international contractor over claims of delay and poor workmanship by contractor.

Jewish Home for the Aging v. Suffolk (2020). Obtained published California Court of Appeal decision finding contractor client not liable for claim of disgorgement under B&P Code Section 7107 and establishing new law on application of statute of limitation for disgorgement claims. Eisenberg Village of the Los Angeles Jewish Home for the Aging v. Suffolk Construction Company (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 1201.  

Condominium Developer (2019). Represented a condominium developer in a private arbitration involving cross-claims by the developer and contractor arising out of the termination of the contractor by the developer for breaches of contract, including failure to complete the project on time and free from defects. A bifurcated arbitration hearing conducted at the end of 2016 and in Fall 2018 resulted in a finding that the developer had properly terminated the contractor; it was awarded approximately $1.8 million (plus accrued interest on the award).Perini v. E.T. Whitehall (2000). Assisted a general contractor with a multimillion-dollar settlement on a hotel renovation project in Santa Monica, California; achieved an efficient settlement with minimal litigation expenses. The settlement resolved claim.

Keenan Hopkins Suder & Stowell Contractors Inc. v. Webcor Construction LP et al. (2019). Represented KHS&S, a drywall and interior finishes subcontractor, in a suit concerning construction of the San Francisco General Hospital Rebuild Program. The City of San Francisco entered into a contract with Webcor, a general contractor, to build the project, and Webcor entered into a subcontract with KHS&S. KHS&S contended that it provided labor, materials, equipment, and services to Webcor -- for which it had not been paid -- and satisfied all conditions required under the subcontract. It also sought to recover prompt payment penalties for not making timely progress payments and delayed payment of retention amounts, as well as additional compensation for impacts to its work caused by acceleration. In May 2019, the parties reached a settlement agreement on the courthouse steps for more than 95% of the $16.0 million damages claimed with the City of San Francisco agreeing to pay the majority of the settlement. 

Shimmick Construction Company, Inc./Obayashi Corporation, a Joint Venture v. San Diego County Water Authority (2018). Represented a joint venture of Shimmick Construction and Obayashi Corporation (SOJV) as plaintiff in a contract dispute with the San Diego County Water Authority over construction of the $140 million San Vicente Dam Raise project, the tallest U.S. dam raise project using roller compacted concrete. The case concerned whether SOJV or the Water Authority was responsible for extra costs, delay, and impact costs necessary to complete the project. The Water Authority also filed a counterclaim against SOJV alleging breach of contract and violation of the California False Claims Act. In January 2018, the jury returned a verdict in excess of $30 million for SOJV, excluding interest. The jury found in favor of SOJV with respect to the Water Authority’s counterclaim for breach of contract and the Owner failed to prove its false claims cross- complaint. SOJV and the Water Authority reached an agreement to settle all claims in August 2018, paying SOJV $36.5M, and the Water Authority agreed to dismiss its cross-complaint for alleged violations of the False Claims Act with prejudice.

Suffolk Construction Company v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2018). Represented Suffolk Construction Company, the general contractor hired by Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) to develop and construct a $70 million project involving multiple buildings, recreational fields, and other work. LAUSD failed to pay all amounts due under the contract, including amounts owed for extra work, delays, and inefficiencies for which LAUSD is responsible. With our assistance, Suffolk submitted a Government Code Claim for damage in excess of $1 million, which LAUSD rejected. Accordingly, Suffolk filed a lawsuit for breach of contract and also asserted a claim for prompt payment penalties and attorney’s fees. After years of no movement by LAUSD and against the threat of prompt payment penalties, the matter settled in 2018.

Cooper Crane v. Pavex/Myers JV (2017). On behalf of Pavex/Myers JV, defended a $2 million claim by a subcontractor on a bridge construction project in Santa Cruz, California. Following a trial in 2014, the court dismissed the primary claim of the subcontractor for $1 million, and the jury awarded the subcontractor an amount less than two pretrial CCP 998 offers made to the subcontractor. The subcontractor then appealed the matter, and Pavex/Meyers cross-appealed. The Court of Appeal’s decision reversed a ruling by the trial court on a licensing defense by Pavex/Myers and the trial court was to reconsider that defense in light of direction by the Court of Appeal. Given the appellate court ruling, the matter settled on terms favorable to the client.

Global Modular v. Kadena Pacific (2017). Represented Kadena Pacific, Inc., which constructed a new Veterans Administration medical facility in Menlo Park, California. Kadena Pacific contracted with Global Modular to provide modular units for the project. Global Modular was late in delivering the units, and the units suffered significant rain damage. After trial in July 2013, the jury awarded Kadena $1.2 million in damages and the court ultimately found that at least $1 million of the judgment was covered by Global Modular’s insurance. The court also awarded fees, costs, and interest for a final judgment of approximately $1.3 million. The matter was appealed and in late 2017, the Court of Appeal issued a published decision (Global Modular v. Kadena Pacific (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 127) that upholds the trial and jury findings in favor of Kadena and reverses an offset ruling by the trial court that reduced Kadena’s recovery by approximately $300,000. The final amended judgment increased to nearly $2 million.

Hobbs-Bannerman, Inc. v. Abener Teyma Mojave General Partnership et al. (2016). Represented Hobbs- Bannerman, Inc. (a subsidiary of Irwin Industries) in connection with a $1.2 million contract to procure and install major electrical components on a 250 megawatt solar power plant being constructed in the Mojave Desert by Abener Teyma Mojave General Partnership. The client provided more than $1 million of extra work, which Abener refused to pay. The matter was submitted to arbitration before the ICC per the contractual dispute resolution requirements. After mediation and continued pressure, an agreement in principle was reached, but Abener was unable to complete the agreement due to financial difficulties. A settlement was reached with the mechanic’s lien release bond surety on more favorable terms. The ICC arbitration then concluded in light of the settlement.

Taisei v. Los Angeles County Sanitation District (2016). Represented Taisei Corporation, which had performed substantial upgrades to a wastewater treatment plant in Lancaster, California, a project value of approximately $150 million. Taisei Construction completed the work successfully, but was delayed by various issues, including design changes and errors for which the owner was responsible. We filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court to recover more than $30 million in damages and defended against cross-complaints by the District and subcontractor Helix Electric. After jury selection, the case settled and Taisei received an eight-figure settlement from the District.

Mediation (2015). Represented Snohomish School District, which constructed a new middle school facility in Snohomish, Washington (near Seattle) and contracted with Absher Construction Company. After completion of the facility, Absher and various subcontractors asserted claims for extra work and impacts to their work, totaling approximately $7 million. Worked with Snohomish School District to resolve the claims through mediation and assist with potential claims for indemnity against the project designers. The case settled favorably in 2015.

Houston Contracting Company v. Alaska Pipeline Company (2014). Represented Ledcor Contractors Group, Inc., which constructed a fiber optic cable (“FOC”) installation in Alaska. Claims were subsequently made that the installation was not in the designated right of way. Litigation ensued in Anchorage, Alaska involving the parties to the installation of the FOC and parties to a pipeline installation that claimed the FOC was outside of the designated right of way. Claims of approximately $3 to $5 million were asserted against LTS. The matter was resolved through mediation on favorable terms to the client.

Suffolk Construction Company v. Colton Unified School District (2014). After Suffolk Construction constructed a new school facility for Colton Unified School District, it was not paid for the full value of its work. We filed an AAA arbitration claim for the unpaid amounts, and the matter went to a two-week hearing before an AAA arbitrator. After the demand for arbitration was filed, Suffolk Construction received more than $1 million in additional contract payments, and it was awarded prompt pay penalties and attorney’s fees in the arbitration award. Suffolk Construction recovered the full amount of the award.

Mediation (2013). Represented The Ryan Company, which had constructed a waste water treatment plant upgrade for the State of California. The State refused to pay retention and outstanding claims for extra work and delays. The case was pending in an Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) Arbitration. After a mediation, in which we served as lead counsel for The Ryan Company, the State agreed to settle the case for $3.7 million -- roughly 75 percent of the amount the client would have sought in arbitration.

Symantec v. Matt Construction (2013). Defended Matt Construction in a case involving construction defect claims, which was originally filed in California Superior Court. We successfully moved the case into arbitration and achieved a settlement payment to the owner equal to the attorney’s fees expended by the opposing party in pursuing its claims (approximately 15 percent of the claimed amount). The settlement amount was paid in full by subcontractors and/or the client’s insurers. 

Applied Utility Systems, Inc. v. Benz Air Engineering Co., Inc. (2012). Represented Applied Utility Systems in a claim to recover amounts unpaid for air pollution control systems and for slander. Defendant counterclaimed for $1 million. Following a three-week jury trial, client was awarded the full balance on the contract, plus interest, lawyer fees, and costs, totaling more than $1.2 million. Defendant was denied any recovery on its counterclaim.

ICC Arbitration (2012). Represented international contractor in an ICC arbitration involving a power plant that it constructed in Latin America. The claimant insurance company 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 our engagement when the claimant was persuaded to dismiss the case or be subject to a motion to dismiss and a request for fees. The case, which was dismissed without any settlement payment by the client, was venued in Miami under Florida law.

Prousys, Inc. v. Taisei-T&K Joint Venture, et al. (2012). Represented Taisei Corporation in a payment dispute. Taisei constructed improvements on a waste water treatment plant for the Inland Empire Utility District (“IEUA”). At the conclusion of the project, Taisei had not been paid approximately $8 million for its work on the project. IEUA filed a counter claim for violation of the False Claims Act. Taisei defeated that claim on summary judgment, and approximately two weeks before trial the case settled for approximately $6 million. When IEUA refused to pay a portion of the settlement amount, Taisei obtained an order enforcing the settlement agreement and recovered its fees for that effort.

Harbour Constructors, Co., v. State of California Department of Water Resources (2011). Harbour Constructors constructed repairs to the California aqueduct, incurring substantial overruns because of defective design documents by the State of California. The State refused to pay retention and outstanding claims for extra work and delays. The case was pending in an Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) Arbitration. After a mediation, the State agreed to settle the case for more than $1 million (roughly 85% of the amount the client would have sought in arbitration). The fees incurred to achieve this result were less than 10% of the total recovery.

SASCO v. Westfield Development Company, Inc. (2010). Represented client in a construction contract dispute with a subcontractor involved in construction of 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 not disputed) and deemed our client the prevailing party, and awarded its costs, attorney's fees, expert fees, and arbitration fees.

Stronghold Engineering v. Western Steel (2009). Represented prime contractor in contract dispute with subcontractor on AAFES project. The matter was tried to a jury in the Riverside County Superior Court and a favorable verdict was returned for the client on its affirmative claim and against the subcontractor on its cross- complaint. Client was awarded attorney’s fees and costs.

Matt Construction v. Century City Doctor’s Hospital (2008). Represented general contractor in prosecution of claim for unpaid work on hospital renovation project. Client received an award of $5.3 million after a three week hearing in a AAA sanctioned arbitration, which was over 90% of the claim amount.

Miramar Construction v. Cal Inc. (2008). Represented client in claim against prime contractor on federal prison renovation project in Los Angeles. The matter was tried before a jury in the Los Angeles Superior Court and after a three week trial, the client obtained a $2.4 million judgment including recovery of its attorney’s fees and prompt payment penalties.

City of Los Angeles v. Chicago Bridge & Iron (2006). Successfully defended a contractor against a claim by the City of Los Angeles under the California False Claims Act, with a 12-0 verdict in favor of the client after a five-week jury trial. The client was also awarded its attorneys’ fees. The appellate court upheld the defense verdict in 2012. Total recovery was approximately $20 million. This was the first jury case in California to find against a public agency on a construction false claims case.

Modern Continental v. Alstom Power (2005). Represented a contractor in claims against an EPC (Engineer/Procure/Construct) contractor on the La Paloma Power Plant Project in Bakersfield, California. Obtained a $37.1 million judgment after a 10-week jury trial.

Sea Castle Partners v. Morley Construction (2004). 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.

Ray Wilson Co. v. GSA (2001). Negotiated an $18 million settlement on behalf of a general contractor client in a Board of Contract Appeals claim against the General Services Administration for claims on the Ronald Reagan Federal Courthouse in Orange County.

Ball, Ball & Brosamer v. Caltrans (OAH Arbitration, 2000). Successfully prosecuted a claim against the California Department of Transportation; this included taking a successful appeal from the original arbitration award and obtaining a full recovery.

Denver International Airport (1995-1997). Represented a paving contractor in defense of claims pertaining to concrete runway construction, including defense of federal grand jury investigations under the Federal False Claims Act. No indictment was returned.