Confidential
Settlement – $1,250,000Judge
Court
Contra Costa Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Gary D. Fields
(Fields Law)
Stanley J. Casper
(Casper, Meadows, Schwartz & Cook)
Defendant
Paul B. Lahaderne
(Sedgwick LLP)
Jordan S. Stanzler
(Stanzler Law Group)
Experts
Plaintiff
David MacLellan
(technical)
Ronald Kaminski
(technical)
Defendant
Scott W. Monroe
(Parker, Ibrahim & Berg LLP)
(technical)
Facts
In the spring of 1992, the defendant completed construction of an eight-building apartment complex. The plaintiffs claimed it was a luxury apartment complex with full amenities including a spa, a pool and a health club. The plaintiffs also claimed that prior to beginning the lease-up process, the general partner of the defendant learned of substantial construction defects throughout the project. The plaintiffs argued that rather than inform prospective tenants, the lease-up operations proceeded and tenants moved in, typically signing one-year leases. A new contractor was brought onto the project in September 1992 for the purpose of repairing the original construction defects. Two phases of repair work were done lasting over a two-year period of time. The first phase involved destruction of all concrete walkways and breezeways, the second phase involved removing of all siding from each of the three-story buildings and re-cladding the entire project. Although the general partner convinced the insurance carriers paying for the repair work to provide him generous tenant concessions of some $1.5 million, no money was ever passed on to the tenants. The plaintiff tenants brought this action against the defendants, the owner/manager, the original contractor and the repair contractor, based on breach of contract, fraud, nuisance and negligence theories of recovery. The plaintiff contended that they were denied the luxury apartment complex promised in the marketing materials presented to them at the time they signed their leases; that they were denied the covenant of quiet enjoyment running with all leaseholds; and that they were defrauded through a series of misrepresentations regarding the condition of the premises. (On this basis, punitive damages were sought against the general partner.) The defendants contended that there was no alternative other than repairing the premises.
Settlement Discussions
The settlement discussions were not disclosed.
Damages
The plaintiffs claimed $__________ in damages.
Other Information
This matter was tried from March 18, 1996 through April 11, 1996, before Judge Barbara A. Zuniga of the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Six test plaintiffs were mutually selected for their cases to be presented. Verdicts were obtained in favor of five plaintiffs on both breach of contract and fraud causes of action, for an average award per plaintiff of approximately $5,500. The jury found that the owner, as general partner, had committed malice, fraud or oppression, although they were not asked to award a specific amount for punitive damages. The original contractor was found negligent, but not the cause of the tenant's injuries. The defendant repair contractor was found not liable. MEDIATION: Following the jury verdicts, subsequent mediation sessions were held before Judge William Bettinelli, retired, of JAMS/Endispute. A final resolution was reached on Aug. 27, 1996 for a total of $1.25 million.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390