Best Best & Krieger News Feed

BB&K Achieves Nearly $1 Million Refund on “Non-Refundable” Equipment Deposit

31 Jan 2005 00:00:00 -0800

The G.C. Broach Co., Inc. v. City of Corona

The case involved a dispute between Corona and an Oklahoma-based equipment manufacturer over the return of a nearly $800,000 deposit on equipment the city decided not to purchase. BB&K Partners John Higginbotham and Victor Wolf convinced the court that the entire agreement was void and that the deposit should be returned, despite the fact that the agreement indicated the deposit was non-refundable. Corona city officials were obviously very pleased with the outcome and the firm’s work on their behalf, particularly given the language of the contract. According to Corona City Attorney Dean Derleth, “this case was very important to the City Council and it was a big victory for the City for many reasons.”

BB&K Achieves Favorable Settlement from Contractor for Fraudulent Billings

02 Jun 2004 00:00:00 -0800

City of Azusa v. Simich Construction Company

BB&K Partner John Higginbotham represented the City of Azusa in City of Azusa v. Simich Construction Company. The case involved fraudulent billings by a contractor, which were later discovered in the course of a contract dispute on a subsequent public works project. As the City’s designated prosecuting authority, BB&K sued the contractor for violations of the False Claims Act. The contractor filed a cross-complaint for breach of contract. The case was ultimately settled on terms highly favorable to the City, which included the contractor receiving nothing and the City retaining a substantial sum of money on the subsequent project which would otherwise have been payable to the contractor.

BB&K Achieves Favorable Settlement from Large, East Coast Contractor

19 Jul 2002 00:00:00 -0800

City of Corona v. Ionics, Incorporated, et al.

BB&K Partners John Higginbotham and Victor Wolf represented the City of Corona in City of Corona v. Ionics, Incorporated, et al. The case involved construction of an $11 million desalinization plant by a large publicly traded contracting firm from the East Coast. Following completion, the contractor submitted a $3.5 million extra work claim, alleging that the City had delayed construction of the project and improperly withheld $1.3 million in liquidated damages. The contractor initially filed suit out-of-state. BB&K successfully moved to have that lawsuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. BB&K then seized the offensive by suing the contractor and several of its sub-contractors for multiple violations of the False Claims Act in State court. The contractor filed a cross-complaint for $3.5 million in extra work. Despite being out-spent nearly 3-to-1 by the contractor’s army of lawyers, BB&K achieved a highly favorable settlement which included the City retaining approximately $900,000 in liquidated damages and not paying the contractor anything on its cross-complaint.