Hunt Ortmann Palffy Nieves Darling & Mah Inc.

Construction

Pasadena

Dale A. Ortmann went to work as a law clerk for construction law maven Gordon Hunt in 1979. The next year a law firm was born that will celebrate its 30th anniversary in 2020. Hunt, now retired, is the co-author of a leading treatise on the field, now in its 18th edition. Ortmann continues that work.

"I inherited his role, and I keep the book ['California Construction Law'] up to date," he said.

The construction business is cyclical, "and we follow that cycle," Ortmann added. "When business is good, as it is right now, there tend to be fewer disputes because construction firms want to keep working, not fighting. We help our clients resolve their business disputes without resorting to litigation."

The 20-attorney firm represents big clients like the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the City of Oxnard and Los Angeles World Airports along with many smaller firms and entities.

For construction company Mallcraft Inc., a team of Hunt Ortmann Palffy Nieves Darling & Mah attorneys won a $15 million settlement in binding arbitration in May 2019 with the Glendale Community College District over work on a classroom building. Glendale, asserting the project had fallen behind schedule, terminated Mallcraft in 2016.

Along with a lost job, Mallcraft also faced the negative consequence of having a "termination for cause" mark on its record, threatening future work. Hunt Ortmann lawyers analyzed hundreds of change orders, requests for information, drawings, specifications and project schedules to navigate the facts and prepare persuasive arguments why the client was entitled to more time to complete the project and that no "cause" existed for termination.

"We were ready for a 10- to 12-week arbitration, but a week after our good presentation we settled 90 percent of the claims," said name partner Omel A. Nieves. And the "termination for cause" designation also was history. "That was important, because contractors who work on public projects are often asked to prequalify and to certify they have not had a 'for cause' termination." Mallcraft Inc. v. Glendale Community College District, 01-16-0005-6085 (AAA, filed Dec. 16, 2016).

Hunt Ortmann represented the Metropolitan Water District in its Diemer Water Treatment Plant project involving construction of a facility for the ozone disinfection of potable water. The firm defended against a $21 million claim of extra work, delay and prompt payment violations. Hunt Ortmann lawyers also assisted the client in responding to claims of about $50 million in claims submitted by a general contractor. Shimmick Obayashi JV v. Metropolitan Water District, BC559603 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Oct. 6, 2014).

The project was said to be one of the largest civil engineering ventures in state history. Following extensive discovery including more than 60 depositions and several successful pretrial motions, the case settled for about $1.4 million.

"MWD attempted to resolve the matter, but the contractor's expectations were quite high," Ortmann said. "Sometimes contractors believe that public agencies will be unwilling to risk litigation and will capitulate if they keep pressing. Here, they tried to take advantage of that political dynamic, but we called their bluff. We used our pretrial motions to limit what the jury would hear. On the Friday before the Monday trial, the contractor gave up."

Said partner Richard Mah, "We defend against the claims and fight the good fight when we need to, but we seek to avoid trouble by doing the front end work at the design and procurement stage too. We'll get in early and steer the client in the right direction."

Nieves said, "We represent a lot of players in the industry. We have a uniquely broad spectrum of clients." Ortmann added, "Many of our public agency clients seek our input in preparing contracts, and our templates guide them in producing required documents right down the line."

-- John Roemer