This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Contracts
Breach of Contract
Negligence

Semco Laser Technology Inc. v. Jose Yow & Associates, Jose Yow and Graeber, Simmons & Cowan Inc.

Published: Dec. 24, 2002 | Result Date: Aug. 22, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC252998 Verdict –  $0

Judge

Frances Rothschild

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Steven J. Cote
(Chang & Cote LLP)


Defendant

Randall A. Miller
(Miller Law Associates APC)

Elizabeth A. Kooyman


Experts

Plaintiff

Robert Ekholm
(technical)

Lance Paris
(technical)

Defendant

Alfred E. Smith
(technical)

Douglas White
(technical)

Jeff Tarter
(technical)

William R. Acorn
(technical)

Facts

The defendant design firm, Jose Yow & Associates, was retained to provide construction drawings for the plaintiff's semi-conductor research and development complex in the City of Industry. The drawings were rejected by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the plaintiff retained a new design firm to upgrade and redesign the facility. The plaintiff sued the architects and designers for breach of contract and negligence and claimed damages for demolition and new construction costs of about $1 million and lost profits from sales of semi-conductor chips in excess of $5 million. The defendants claimed that the drawings were prepared based upon the plaintiff's specific instructions and requests. The defendants asserted that all specific instructions and requests were made on the plaintiff's behalf and were to the effect that the occupancy classification that was requested was consistent with the plaintiff's intended use of the facility with respect to the quantity and quality of chemicals allowed under the occupancy classification requested.

Settlement Discussions

The plaintiff submitted a demand of $900,000; the defendant offered $25,000.

Other Information

After the plaintiff rested its case, the judge granted a motion for judgment in favor of the architect defendant, based upon the plaintiff's failure to proffer evidence to establish the architect's standard of care or breach thereof, and the plaintiff's failure to establish a breach of contract.

Length

seven days


#80975

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390