Katherine Grill on Behalf of the Katherine Grill Revocable Trust, et al. v. Meritage Homes of California Inc., et al.
Published: Dec. 31, 2016 | Result Date: May 26, 2016 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: CV 11-13 Verdict – Mixed Verdict
Court
Yolo Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
David A. Frenznick
(Wilke Fleury Hoffelt Gould & Birney LLP)
Robert T. Haney
(Parker PLLC)
Defendant
Johanna M. Berta
(Severson & Werson APC)
Sheila M. Totorp
(Clausen Miller PC)
J. Michael Cochrane
(Greve Clifford Wengel & Paras LLP)
David A. Ericksen
(Collins Collins LLP)
Ian R. Feldman
(Clausen Miller PC)
Experts
Plaintiff
William C. Thomas III
(technical)
Charles E. Cassani
(technical)
John Payne
(technical)
Al Saroyan
(technical)
Anurag Jain
(technical)
George Thomas
(technical)
Kim Worl
(technical)
Defendant
Kelly Cobeen
(technical)
Larry Keil
(technical)
James A. Mahaney
(technical)
Anthony Montosa
(technical)
Ray Choy-Marshall
(technical)
Facts
Plaintiff homeowners sued structural engineer Harris & Sloan and stucco contractor Toliver Plastering Inc. for alleged defects in the structure and on stucco surfaces of several single family homes in West Sacramento.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended there were stucco defects and engineering deficiencies as to 41 single family homes. Plaintiff homeowners alleged that the structural engineer and/or stucco subcontractor fell below their respective standards of care, which in turn caused various defects including stucco cracks, water intrusion, and development of mold.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendants disputed plaintiffs' allegations.
Settlement Discussions
Prior to trial, plaintiffs demanded between $500,000 and $1.5 million from Toliver Plastering, the stucco subcontractor. According to defense, plaintiffs also demanded $12 million from Harris & Sloan.
Damages
Plaintiffs claimed repairs to purported defects in the structural design for wind and cede issues, the application of the stucco system, and remediation of mold. Plaintiffs also alleged loss of use and diminution in value of properties. According to defense, plaintiffs sought $5.6 million.
Result
The jury rendered a verdict for the plaintiff and awarded $128,525 against the stucco contractor. The jury rendered a complete defense verdict for the structural engineer.
Other Information
Plaintiff filed a post-trial motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which was denied and a memorandum of costs in support, which was denied. Toliver filed a post-trial motion to vacate and enter different judgment, and a memorandum of costs in support, which was also denied. Plaintiff's motion for new trial was denied. According to defense, all parties filed a motion to tax costs, which were withdrawn, following post-trial settlement, or denied. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal that was withdrawn as moot following a post-trial settlement. Plaintiffs had previously settled with all other defendants, including Meritage, prior to trial.
Deliberation
three days
Length
16 days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390