News & Events
Green & Hall Obtains Dismissal of Class Action Against Builder
March 31, 2010 – Robert Green, Katherine Lizardo, and Stephanie Lemmon successfully petitioned the United States District Court for the Central District of California to dismiss with prejudice a class action brought against a publicly-held builder and its affiliated mortgage broker. At the height of the housing market, the plaintiffs bought new homes from the builder and financed their purchases through the affiliated mortgage broker. When their property values decreased in 2009, they filed a class action complaint on behalf of themselves and all other purchasers of new homes from the builder who put at least 20% down towards the purchase of their properties at any time from 2004 through 2006, both in California and nationwide. In the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the builder misrepresented the value of their properties and failed to disclose the existence of certain unqualified and high-foreclosure-risk purchasers in their neighborhoods. The plaintiffs sought restitution as well as compensatory and punitive damages.
The builder filed a Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike. They argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action and therefore lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). They claimed that the plaintiffs have not suffered any injury in fact and their purported reduced property values are conjectural, at best. They also argued that the alleged harm had no causal connection to the builder and mortgage broker’s actions. Alternatively, the builder contended that none of the plaintiffs’ five causes of action state any viable claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
In granting our Motion, the Judge held that the housing bubble and inflation of housing prices were a nationwide phenomena. Further, the Court held that the plaintiffs’ harm is not fairly traceable to the alleged misconduct of the builder. The Court therefore held that the plaintiffs have no standing to sue for allegedly paying inflated purchase prices or for any subsequent reduction in property values and dismissed the case. The plaintiffs have appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Green & Hall Prevails in Binding Arbitration on Behalf of Builder
February 22, 2010 – Robert Green prevailed in a binding arbitration on behalf of a builder client that involved two consolidated actions. One of the claims was brought by homeowners who sought damages for an alleged perched water condition underneath their house, claiming that it exposed the slab to excessively-saturated conditions, which in turn purportedly led to damage and debonding of their home’s tile and wood flooring. In addition, the Plaintiffs claimed that their home and rear yard improvements were suffering damage from soil settlement and lateral fill extension. As a result of that movement, the Plaintiffs claimed that their entire rear yard (including the swimming pool) needed to be reconstructed and the soil stabilized with a caisson and grade beam repair. All totaled, the Plaintiffs sought damages exceeding $1.6 million.
The second action also involved alleged construction defects. The homeowners claimed shower leaks, window leaks, french door leaks, stucco and drywall cracks throughout the house, structural movement, and mold. These claimants sought $101,000 for costs of repair, fees and mold abatement.
The builder successfully argued that on the first home, there was insufficient proof of perched water and damage to the flooring caused thereby. In addition, all damage to rear yard improvements (admitted to exist) could be explained by the homeowners’ failing to follow the builder’s Disclosure Guidelines and warnings regarding the need for special engineering of structures in a top-of-slope environment.
On the second home, the builder argued that any leaks observed were attributable to a lack of homeowner maintenance. All of the cracks observed on the interior and exterior of the home were within industry tolerance, and the mold that was observed (attributable to the above-referenced leaks) was removed during destructive testing.
The Arbitrator agreed with the builder and gave both homeowners nothing. In addition, the purchase contracts with each homeowner contained an attorney’s fee provision and the builder was awarded all of its fees, costs and expert witness expenses (totaling $151,000).
Green & Hall Wins Defense Verdict in Trucking Liability Suit
May 5, 2010 – Robert Green and Katherine Lizardo obtained a defense verdict while representing the truck driver in a serious injury claim. This case involved a motor vehicle collision between a motorcycle rider and a truck driver hauling two-fully loaded tractor trailers. At an intersection the truck rolled into the motorcycle, knocked the Plaintiff down, unknowingly pushed him 48 feet into the intersection, and severed his right leg below the knee. Prior to the arrival of the investigating police officers at the scene, the Plaintiff was taken to the hospital by ambulance. In the emergency room, the doctor ordered a blood test and Plaintiff’s blood alcohol level was almost 0.20%. At trial, the Plaintiff did not dispute his own negligence in driving drunk. He however argued that the truck driver should share responsibility because he saw and/or heard the Plaintiff pull up (or alternatively could have/should have seen and heard him at the intersection). The Plaintiff claimed special damages totaling $2,447,662 (due to the traumatic nature of the injury, Plaintiff underwent 19 different surgeries over a 3-year period).
It should be noted that one year before trial, the defense moved to bifurcate, which the Court granted. Immediately prior to trial commencing, the parties stipulated to waive the damages phase by agreeing how to address the subject of monetary recovery. More particularly, there was little dispute on the amount of damages sustained by the Plaintiff. The parties therefore agreed that a reasonable estimation of probable verdict would be $4,000,000. Accordingly, they agreed pretrial to ask the jury to determine liability, and if liability was found, to apportion it, which would then be simply multiplied by the $4,000,000 figure. By reaching that stipulation, the parties avoided what they estimated to be approximately two or three weeks of trial (given the severity of Plaintiff’s injuries). And by agreeing to handle damages in this manner, the defense was able to avoid having the jury hear and see evidence of Plaintiff’s horrific injuries and need for lifetime care. Because the jury found 100% fault on the part of the motorcycle rider, no damages were awarded.
Green & Hall Prevails in Binding Arbitration
November, 2008 - Sam Danskin recently received an award in favor of Standard Pacific Corp. arising out of a dispute involving the sale of residential property. The award was the result of a binding arbitration before the Hon. Luis Cardenas of JAMS in October 2008.
Green & Hall Prevails in Binding Arbitration
May, 2008 - Brian Plante prevailed in a two week binding arbitration on behalf of Laing Luxury Homes, and its trade partner, The Green Scene. After successfully moving to compel arbitration pursuant to a contractual arbitration provision in the purchase agreement, the matter was adjudicated by a three arbitrator panel with AAA. The claimants sought damages for incomplete landscape and hardscape improvements and alleged construction defects. They also sought damages for loss of use, emotional distress and bodily injury due to alleged mold exposure. In total, the claimants sought damages of over $2.5 million. The three arbitrator panel awarded the claimants a net recovery of $132,000. This award is significantly less than the statutory offer to compromise that Laing served upon the claimants in the early stages of the litigation. Laing has therefore filed a Memorandum of Costs, wherein it seeks reimbursement of its expert fees and litigation costs pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 998.
Court of Appeal Affirms Defense Verdict
July 28, 2008 - Brian Plante represents the Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners ("AFTE"), and in 2006 completed a trial involving one of its members. The lawsuit followed AFTE's public censure of Plaintiff for allegedly giving unethical testimony as an expert witness in an underlying criminal trial. Plaintiff sued under various theories of liability, including breach of contract, restraint of trade, negligent and intentional interference with contractual relations, and negligent and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Following a bench trial, the Court found in favor of AFTE on all counts, and awarded AFTE its statutory costs as the prevailing party. Plaintiff appealed. On July 28, 2008, the Fourth District Court of Appeal published its decision affirming the Trial Court in all respects.
California Supreme Affirms Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg.
July 21, 2008 - Brian Plante completed a 4 month jury trial on behalf of long time Green & Hall client, Capital Pacific Holdings, Inc. formerly known as J.M. Peters Company, Inc. ("J.M. Peters"), in 2003. The Trial Court found in favor of J.M. Peters on its declaratory relief cause of action against Weather Shield, Mfg. ("Weather Shield"), a window supplier. In so doing, the Court held that Weather Shield had a prospective duty to defend J.M. Peters even though the jury found in favor of Weather Shield on the Plaintiffs' negligence claim. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Trial Court's ruling, finding that negligence was not a prerequisite to triggering Weather Shield's defense obligation under an express indemnity provision in the subcontract agreement between J.M. Peters and Weather Shield. On July 21, 2008, the Supreme Court published its unanimous decision affirming the Appellate Court. Not only is this decision is a huge victory for homebuilders, it is a groundbreaking case as it pertains to the law of indemnity.
Joseph M. ElGuindy Becomes a Shareholder in the Firm
January 09, 2008 - Green & Hall is pleased to announce that Joseph M. ElGuindy has become a shareholder in the firm. Joe's elevation to the shareholder ranks recognizes his tremendous contribution to the firm, and especially to the success and growth of the Roseville Office. We value his energy and dedication to our clients, both of which are essential for the continued success of the firm. Congratulations Joe!
Read Archived News and Events:
2007
2005
