Construction

​​Representative Cases

  • Claim of defective remodel of Plaintiffs’ home resulting in having to hire another contractor to demolish the prior work and then complete the remodel.

  • Construction defect claim filed by homeowner against the contractor and all sub-contractors regarding water intrusion into a newly constructed home.

  • Plaintiff hired Defendant as general contractor on a commercial remodel project. Defendant agreed to remodel commercial premises for Plaintiff’s restaurant. Defendant agreed that the project would not cost more than $375,000, that they would only use properly licensed subcontractors to perform the work in a workmanlike manner. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant breached the general contracting agreement in several ways: Hiring unlicensed subcontractors, the work was defective, the City of Santa Monica cited the project several times for various construction defects and Defendant went over budget and past schedule. In addition, Defendant misappropriated progress payments, resulting in various claims by the subcontractors against Plaintiff.

  • Dispute between contractor and homeowner over payment for labor and materials.

  • Plaintiff entered into an agreement to provide construction services on a public works project. Plaintiff allegedly encountered several delays to the construction schedule due to events outside of Plaintiff’s control, including substantial revisions by the County to the construction sequence for installation of water lines. The County also directed Plaintiff to remove a portion of the pipeline for further investigation of cracking in the interior cement lining and corrosion in the pipe, even though Plaintiff and the pipe manufacturer had already submitted repair plans. Defendant County allegedly breached the parties’ agreement by refusing to pay sums due under the contract, including the sums accrued for changes in the plans and removal of the pipe for investigation.

  • Plaintiff entered into a Residential Purchase Agreement to purchase property constructed by Defendant. Plaintiff would be the first occupant of the newly constructed home. Plaintiff alleges the house was negligently constructed. Plaintiff further alleges that the Defendants knew of these defects and intentionally withheld those facts and made affirmative misrepresentations regarding the property to induce Plaintiff’s purchase.

  • Plaintiff, a contractor, made a subcontract agreement with Defendant for glazing work at an office building project. Plaintiff’s bid for the subcontract was based on materials from another Defendant who manufactured the materials in China. After performing work under that subcontract, the Defendant instructed Plaintiff to cease work and submit a re-bid based on domestic materials. A dispute arose between Plaintiff and Defendant regarding the existence of an enforceable subcontract, as well as over Defendant’s obligation to pay for work performed.

  • Plaintiff was engaged in the business of developing real property, including the construction of a single-family residence located in Beverly Hills. Plaintiff directly contracted with Defendant for the purchase, delivery and installation of a “storefront” glass wall, doors and windows for the Property. Defendant represented that he was experienced in installing the type of glass, windows and doors of the type required for the Property and drove Plaintiff to several locations where there were examples of his prior work. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant did not order or install a glass “storefront” wall as the parties agreed, but instead substituted a different and inferior product without Plaintiff’s knowledge and consent. Defendant also negligently and improperly installed the glass wall panes, numerous doors and windows. Defendant also failed to timely complete the work. Defendant also falsely represented that he held a valid contractor’s license for performance of the work, when in fact he did not. Defendant also hired unlicensed individuals to work on the project.