Case Summaries

Construction

[09/01] Hinerfeld-Ward, Inc. v. Lipian
In a general contractor's suit against homeowners for breach of oral contract, quantum meruit, wrongful withholding of progress payments, and related cause of action, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed as, the oral contract was enforceable and the contractor is entitled to attorney fees for the homeowners' delay in making progress payments.

[08/31] Great W. Contractors, Inc. v. Irvine Unified Sch. Dist.
In plaintiff-contractor's suit against a school district (District), challenging the District's rejection of plaintiff's bid to remodel two elementary schools, trial court's judgment in favor of the District is reversed where: 1) trial court was incorrect in rejecting plaintiff's lowest bid as nonresponsive as, under D.H. Williams, 146 Cal.App.4th 757 (2007), a public agency cannot reject the bid of the lowest bidder on a public works project on the theory that the bid is nonresponsive to the agency's request for bids when, in substance, the real reason for the rejection is that the agency thinks the lowest bidder is "not responsible" - at least not without giving the lowest bidder the chance for a hearing on whether the lowest bidder really is "not responsible"; and 2) the trial court abused its discretion in rejecting plaintiff's admittedly belated request to amend.

[08/31] Force Framing, Inc. v. Chinatrust Bank
In plaintiff's suit against defendant-lender for a bonded stop notice, trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment because plaintiff served the statutorily required 20-day preliminary notice on another lender, and not defendant, is reversed where: 1) the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment because there is a triable issue of fact regarding the reasonableness of plaintiff's belief that another lender was the lender for the project; 2) defendant's argument that plaintiff could not have held a good faith belief that the other lender was the actual lender because plaintiff did not check the county records for the deed of trust that the lender recorded in 2005 is rejected; and 3) the court is not persuaded that, as a matter of law, pursuant to Kodiak, plaintiff had constructive notice that defendant was the actual lender and could not have held a good faith belief that the other lender was the actual lender.

[08/30] Miranda v. Bomel Constr. Co., Inc.
In plaintiff's negligence suit against a general subcontractor and a subcontractor, claiming that defendants negligently, carelessly and unlawfully allowed excavated dirt, located in a vacant lot next to his office, to be in a dangerous, defective, and unlawful condition so as to cause plaintiff to suffer severe injuries and damages when he breathed the particles from the excavated dirt, trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants is affirmed where: 1) defendants met their burden of proof it was only a possibility, not a reasonable medical probability, plaintiff contracted Valley Fever by inhaling an airborne Cocci spore that originated from the soil at the site; and 2) trial court properly sustained the evidentiary objections to plaintiff's experts' speculative conclusions about causation.

[08/27] State of Texas v. Brownlow
In property owners' suit against the state for inverse condemnation for removing dirt from their property after obtaining an easement to construct a mitigation pond on the property to collect water that would result from a highway expansion project, the court of appeals' reversal of trial court's dismissal of the suit is affirmed as the easement did not grant the state the right to use the excavated dirt for highway construction, plaintiffs' suit states a takings claim under the Texas Constitution, and the state does not have sovereign immunity from the suit.

[08/24] Penn-America Ins. Co. v. Lavigne
In an insurer's suit against its insured and plaintiff seeking a declaratory judgment that the insured's insurance policy excluded liability coverage for claims arising from roofing, arising from serious injuries sustained by plaintiff when a portion of a scaffolding snapped while visiting his friend, the insured, at the job-site, a grant of summary judgment in favor of the insurer is affirmed where: 1) the only language added to Endorsement A plainly expresses the intent of the parties to exclude claims arising from roofing; and 2) there is no dispute that plaintiff's injuries originated from, grew out of, flowed from, or had a connection with, roofing.

[08/24] Curtis Lumber Co. v. Louisiana Pac. Corp.
In an action by a retail supplier of building materials regarding defendant's alleged failure to follow through on defendant's rebate promotion that plaintiff promoted to many of its customers, partial summary judgment for defendant is affirmed in part where the testimony offered by plaintiff fell short of the elevated burden for proving fraud by circumstantial evidence. However, the judgment is reversed in part where: 1) plaintiff alleged distinct injuries that would not have occurred had defendant paid rebates owed to plaintiff's customers; and 2) there was a question of material fact as to whether defendant's rebate documents misrepresented or omitted a material term of the rebate promotion.

[08/24] Schram Constr., Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of California
Trial court's denial of plaintiff's petition for a writ of mandate challenging a decision by a general contractor and University Regents, awarding a contract to another subcontractor is reversed where: 1) the contract with the subcontractor must be set aside, as the University's violations of the competitive bidding statutes were not merely "technical or nonsubstantive," and they undermined the goal of stimulating competition in a manner conducive to sound fiscal practices and compromised the integrity of the selection process by failing to ensure procedural and substantive fairness; and 2) University did not violate section 1056.7 in awarding a contract on one of the alternative combination packages to the subcontractor.

[08/23] Fresh Coat, Inc. v. K-2, Inc.

[08/23] Ted Jacob Eng'g Group, Inc. v. Ratcliff Architects
In a subcontractor's suit against defendant-architects for breach of contract and other causes of action in connection with a city hospital renovation and expansion project, judgment of the trial court is affirmed where: 1) in the absence of a negotiated agreement upon price, and assuming no contrary contractual provision applies, a subcontractor may still pursue a claim seeking a judicial determination of additional fees when it performs work demanded of it by the general contractor constituting a material change in the scope of work defined under the contract; and 2) if good faith negotiation between the parties fails to result in agreement on price, the subcontractor is not required to elect between the job and forfeiting its right of recovery if it elects to perform the required work.

[08/20] Hussein v. City of Perrysburg
In homeowners' suit against a city, a city inspector and other individuals in their official and personal capacities, claiming that defendants violated their procedural and substantive due process rights by ordering a construction worker to remove a temporary asphalt layer in their driveway, judgment of the district court is reversed and remanded where: 1) defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because state officials are permitted under the Constitution to inform citizens of the officials' view that they are violating state or local law and state officials are also permitted to threaten litigation or prosecution if citizens do not agree to conform their actions to state or local law; and 2) defendant did not violate plaintiffs' substantive due process rights as the asphalt driveway incident did not implicate specific constitutional guarantees.

[08/18] EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys., Inc.
In a subcontractor's suit for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, and an account stated, district court's judgment is affirmed where: 1) when reviewing a motion for summary judgment, a district court does not abuse its discretion under Rule 30(e) when it refuses to consider proposed substantive changes that materially contradict prior deposition testimony, if the party proffering the changes fails to provide sufficient justification; 2) district court correctly granted judgment on the breach of contract claim and denied plaintiff's motions for reconsideration as the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider plaintiff's untimely and contradictory errata sheet; 3) district court's rejection of plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is affirmed; and 4) district court did not err in rendering judgment under Rule 52(c) on the claim for fraudulent inducement as the district court did not clearly err in finding that plaintiff had failed to prove a material misrepresentation by clear and convincing evidence.

[08/16] Tr. of the S. California IBEW-NECA Pension Plan v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist.
In a suit against the Los Angeles Unified School District and a construction contractor working for the school district, alleging that the contractor violated the terms of the Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA) by failing to pay the Trustees of the Southern California IBEW-NECA Pension Plan (Trustees) approximately $20,000 in employee fringe benefits, trial court's ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in the district's request for judicial declaration that Labor Code section 1776(e) prohibited it from producing personal employee information contained in third-party certified payroll records is affirmed as, contrary to the district's contention that it has an absolute privilege to withhold the information at issue, personal employee information contained within an awarding agency's copies of certified payroll records is subject to a conditional privilege.

[08/11] Paul Davis Nat'l v. City of New Orleans
In an action claiming that defendant-city failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Louisiana's Public Works Act by not requiring a third party to post a payment bond, thus making the city solidarily liable on plaintiff's claim for the cost of the work in a park, partial summary judgment for plaintiff is affirmed for the reasons stated by the district court.

[08/05] Colleton Preparatory Acad. Inc. v. Hoover Universal. Inc.
In plaintiff's suit for negligence and for violation of the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act, arising from alleged damages to the roof on several of plaintiff's buildings allegedly caused by fire-retardant substances produced and sold by the defendants or their predecessors in interest, district court's entry of default against defendant is affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded where: 1) district court's order that service of process was proper is affirmed; but 2) the district court abused its discretion when it denied the motion filed by defendant to set aside the entry of default, as under the circumstances, the entire course of the district court proceedings, resting on the district court's flawed view that liability against defendant had been reliably established by the entry of default, is undermined.

Back to Main