Geller, et al. v. Kaufman & Broad
Published: May 18, 2004 | Result Date: Apr. 7, 2004 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: LC048341 Bench Decision – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Central
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Jonathan S. Vick
(Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo)
Defendant
Frank T. Sabaitis
(Sabaitis, Lunsford & Moore)
Louis R. Chao
(Archer Norris PLC)
Experts
Plaintiff
Warren "Kelley" Roberts
(technical)
Neil Thaulow
(technical)
Mohammad Joolazadeh
(technical)
Jack Neal
(technical)
Kevin V. Keegan
(technical)
Defendant
Robert C. O'Neil
(technical)
Ronald J. Lejman
(technical)
Alan Dunn
(technical)
Thomas Sanders
(technical)
Ed Bove
(technical)
Facts
The plaintiff is the homeowners association for a 238 unit single-family project located in West Hills that was originally developed by Crystal-Canoga and Urban West. Subsequently, the project was purchased and completed by Kaufman & Broad. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, pursuant to an oral agreement with R&R Palacios, T.A. Staben installed backdrains, surface drainage devices, backfill and applied thoroseal to the back of approximately five miles of retaining walls at the project.
Settlement Discussions
The defendant extended C.C.P. Section 998 offer for $205,000. Settlement discussions continued during trial and the defendant offered a combined sum of $350,000 to the plaintiff, which they rejected. The plaintiff's lowest settlement demand was $1.5 million.
Result
Prior to the start of the trial, the court granted R&R Palacios' motion for severance of its cross-complaint based upon equitable indemnity principles, whereby it sought to recover from T.A. Staben the $3.3 million that it guaranteed the plaintiff as part of its sliding scale settlement. As a result of this ruling, R&R Palacios was dismissed from this action by the plaintiff and did not participate in trial. The court also granted the defendant's motion for bifurcated proceedings to address the defendant's affirmative defense based on the three year statute of limitations (C.C.P. Section 338). On this issue, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff by a 9-3 margin. Thereafter, following the plaintiff's presentation of its case, T.A. Staben moved for nonsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that T.A. Staben had deviated from the scope of the work that he had been asked to perform, which was granted by the court.
Other Information
The action arose from a multi-party construction defect action that involved architectural issues and off-site improvements, including those related to the retaining walls. As a result of settlements reached with all the other parties in the action, with the assistance of the mediator, the plaintiff recovered a confidential amount for the architectural issues and retaining walls at the project. The court would not allow the plaintiff's experts to offer testimony that the work of T.A. Staben fell below the standard of care in the industry; that T.A. Staben did not apply the thoroseal in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations or T.A. Staben did not apply the thoroseal in accordance with the instructions on the bag.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390