Daniel P. Scholz

The firm represented a general engineering contractor in presenting and proving differing site condition claims related to a utility vault in the way of road improvements for a City project. The firm assisted the client in the delay and cost analysis. The firm then mediated a mid-project recovery and schedule reset —preventing the client from long-term financing of the City’s liability.

Counsel: P. Randolph Finch Jr., Daniel P. Scholz, and Matthew D. Seeley

The firm’s client was terminated by a City for default for not proceeding with massive dewatering work necessary for a new pipeline project, and the City made demand on the client’s performance bond surety to complete the work.  The firm promptly analyzed the situation and made demand on the City for material breach for failure to provide any geotechnical or subsurface water information pre-bid, including failure to define a dewatering scope in the bid documents and contract. The firm also convinced the client’s surety to back the client’s position and refuse to honor the performance demand. The City was persuaded to convert the termination from default to one for convenience, and the client was paid for its work. The client’s surety was so impressed with the firm’s efforts, it waived its fee reimbursement claim against the client.

Counsel: P. Randolph Finch Jr. and Daniel P. Scholz

The firm successfully represented its client in negotiating a multi-year water treatment plant operating contract with a public entity. The firm was able to negotiate clear requirements on the scope of work as well as defining legal boundaries to safeguard the client against unforeseen environmental or facility contingencies, including robust escalation clauses and fee structures to protect the client’s margin.

Counsel: Daniel P. Scholz

The firm successfully represented a preferred equity investor in a high-profile mid-rise mixed use development project, safeguarding the complete recovery of the $2 million preferred equity investment. In this transaction, the firm’s meticulous structuring and assertive advocacy in handling intercreditor and partnership issues ensured the client was paid in full, protecting their principal, and securing the achieved returns in the development.

Counsel: P. Randolph Finch Jr. and Daniel P. Scholz

The firm successfully acted as Project Counsel to a residential multi-tenant owner during a nearly two-year dispute involving significant project delays caused by a poorly performing general contractor. The firm assisted the owner in rebutting delay and extra work claims by the general contractor. With the firm’s help, the Owner successfully closed out the Project while assessing actual and liquidated damages against the contractor’s remaining contract balance, all while avoiding litigation.​

Counsel: Daniel P. Scholz and Matthew D. Seeley

The firm represented a company who uncovered an internal fraud scheme involving an employee’s misuse of a company-issued credit card. The employee had stolen company property for personal gain. The firm assisted the client in investigating the misconduct, reporting the theft to law enforcement, and filed a lawsuit against the employee. The employee agreed to a favorable settlement for the firm’s client immediately after service of the lawsuit.

Counsel: P. Randolph Finch Jr., Daniel P. Scholz, and Matthew D. Seeley

The firm was retained by a minority shareholder to resolve a management dispute over the direction of a food and beverage company it was heavily invested in. The firm negotiated an agreement among the three owners and managers to restate the operating agreement to allow non-unanimous management decisions and reduce personal exposure to company debts, to allow the company to move forward profitably and grow.  The company has operated successfully since.  Based on the firm’s efforts, management terminated its prior law firm and retained the firm to counsel it in future endeavors.

Counsel: P. Randolph Finch Jr., Daniel P. Scholz, and Matthew D. Seeley

The firm’s client was the second low bidder on a roughly $49 million dollar public works project. The firm filed a bid protest on behalf of the client, contending the apparent low bidder must be disqualified on the grounds it lacked the necessary California contractor’s license at the time of the bid. Although the public entity owner’s Bid Documents only required bidders to hold the required license by the time the project was awarded, the firm successfully argued the public entity must disqualify the apparent low bidder under Business and Professions Code, section 7028.15, subdivision (e) which requires bidders to be licensed at the time of the bid on projects only involving state or local funds. The public entity granted the protest, disqualified the low apparent bidder, and awarded the project to the firm’s client.

Counsel: P. Randolph Finch Jr., Daniel P. Scholz & Matthew D. Seeley

The firm represented a general contractor in a dispute with a subcontractor on a public works construction project.  Disputes arose because the subcontractor failed to provide certified payroll documentation, bonds, and failed to meet schedule requirements.  Due to these problems, the general contractor withheld funds from the subcontractor.  The subcontractor sued the general contractor and its sureties for breach of contract, fraud, and prompt payment penalties.  As part of its claim, the subcontractor asserted a claim for over $8 million in lost profits allegedly caused by the general contractor.  During litigation, the firm discovered the subcontractor’s California contractor’s license had been suspended during a period of the project because the subcontractor had let its workers’ compensation coverage expire and had failed to obtain new coverage. Unbeknownst to the general contractor, the subcontractor worked without insurance, exposing both its employees and the general contractor to significant risk. The subcontractor was able to obtain a meaningless workers’ compensation insurance policy years after the work had been performed and convinced the California State License Board (CSLB) to retroactively reinstate its license.

The case proceed to trial.  At trial, the firm was able to prove the license reinstatement request to the CSLB was fraudulent.  The subcontractor claimed its lack of workers’ compensation insurance was due to circumstances beyond its control.  However, the firm proved coverage had been cancelled because of a payment dispute between the subcontractor and the workers’ compensation insurance carrier.  Further, the firm proved the subcontractor knew its coverage was canceled and its license was suspended by the CSLB, but continued to perform work on the project with a suspended license and no workers’ compensation insurance.  As a result of the firm’s efforts, the trial court found the subcontractor was not properly licensed and was barred from any recovery.  Additionally, the trial court awarded the firm’s client all of its attorneys’ fees and costs to defend the lawsuit.  The subcontractor appealed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed with the firm and affirmed the judgment in favor of the general contractor.  The court recognized that the subcontractor was not duly licensed at all times and its false representations to the CSLB to obtain reinstatement were insufficient to avoid the consequences of Business and Professions Code section 7031.

A copy of the published decision can be viewed here.

Am. Bldg. Innovation Lp v. Balfour Beatty Constr. (Sep. 3, 2024, Nos. G062471, G062965) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2024 Cal. App. LEXIS 543]

Counsel: Jason R. Thornton, Daniel P. Scholz, and Scott M. Bennet

The firm represented a general contractor in a dispute with a subcontractor on a public works construction project.  Disputes arose because the subcontractor failed to provide certified payroll documentation, bonds, and failed to meet schedule requirements.  Due to these problems, the general contractor withheld funds from the subcontractor.  The subcontractor sued the general contractor and its sureties for breach of contract, fraud, and prompt payment penalties.  As part of its claim, the subcontractor asserted a claim for over $8 million in lost profits allegedly caused by the general contractor.  During litigation, the firm discovered the subcontractor’s California contractor’s license had been suspended during a period of the project because the subcontractor had let its workers’ compensation coverage expire and had failed to obtain new coverage. Unbeknownst to the general contractor, the subcontractor worked without insurance, exposing both its employees and the general contractor to significant risk. The subcontractor was able to obtain a meaningless workers’ compensation insurance policy years after the work had been performed and convinced the California State License Board (CSLB) to retroactively reinstate its license.

The case proceed to trial.  At trial, the firm was able to prove the license reinstatement request to the CSLB was fraudulent.  The subcontractor claimed its lack of workers’ compensation insurance was due to circumstances beyond its control.  However, the firm proved coverage had been cancelled because of a payment dispute between the subcontractor and the workers’ compensation insurance carrier.  Further, the firm proved the subcontractor knew its coverage was canceled and its license was suspended by the CSLB, but continued to perform work on the project with a suspended license and no workers’ compensation insurance.  As a result of the firm’s efforts, the trial court found the subcontractor was not properly licensed and was barred from any recovery.  Additionally, the trial court awarded the firm’s client all of its attorneys’ fees and costs to defend the lawsuit.  The subcontractor appealed.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed with the firm and affirmed the judgment in favor of the general contractor.  The court recognized that the subcontractor was not duly licensed at all times and its false representations to the CSLB to obtain reinstatement were insufficient to avoid the consequences of Business and Professions Code section 7031.

A copy of the published decision can be viewed here.

Am. Bldg. Innovation Lp v. Balfour Beatty Constr. (Sep. 3, 2024, Nos. G062471, G062965) ___Cal.App.5th___ [2024 Cal. App. LEXIS 543]

Counsel: Jason R. Thornton, Daniel P. Scholz, and Scott M. Bennet

​The firm represented a subcontractor who had not received full payment for work performed on a large hotel construction project in downtown San Diego. To protect the subcontractor’s collection rights, the firm recorded a mechanic’s lien against the hotel property for slightly more than $1,500,000 and served a bonded stop payment notice on the project’s construction lender. The subcontractor’s payment dispute included more than 370 outstanding or contested change order claims. The firm conducted extensive oral and written discovery with both the general contractor and the property owner regarding the subcontractor’s claims. Following percipient witness discovery, the firm successfully negotiated a settlement for its client. The settlement payments—totaling over $2,200,000—were guaranteed by the general contractor’s surety.​

Counsel: P. Randolph Finch Jr., Jeffrey B. Baird, and Cory P. DiBene

The firm represented a subcontractor on a private construction project. During the subcontractor’s work on the project, the prime contractor directed the subcontractor to perform millions of dollars of extra work, failed to secure timely payment from the owner, and tried to force the subcontractor to finance the work until the owner paid. The firm filed suit against the prime contractor and its payment bond surety at the first opportunity. The prime contractor filed a retaliatory cross-complaint against the firm’s client and its performance bond surety. Through timely and aggressive litigation, including extensive discovery to the prime contractor, the firm obtained a settlement favorable to the client, resulting in payment to the subcontractor and a dismissal of the cross-complaint.

Counsel: Daniel P. Scholz, and Matthew D. Seeley

The firm represented the owner of a Southern California hotel. Construction of the hotel had significant delay and cost overruns, in part, because of design errors and omissions. The firm represented the owner in a lawsuit with the hotel’s architect. After extensive discovery and mediation, the firm obtained a favorable settlement in the client’s favor on the eve of trial.

Counsel:, Daniel P. Scholz, and Matthew D. Seeley

​The firm represented a general contractor bridge builder against a specialty design-build subcontractor in a lawsuit.  Both parties alleged material breach by the other.  The firm negotiated a settlement with a seven figure payment to the firm’s client, plus an offset of the pre-breach subcontract balance.

Counsel: P. Randolph Finch Jr. and Thomas E. Diamond

The firm’s client was the low bidder on a $9 million public works project.  The second low bidder submitted a bid protest arguing the client was non-responsive because: (1) the client’s bond sureties had “A-” ratings rather than an “A” rating as stated in the  bid documents; and (2) certain bid documents had been notarized by an expired notary.  After written submissions, the firm successfully defended against the bid protest by proving the surety rating was equivalent to an “A” rating and the notary issue was a non-material waivable defect.  The protest was denied, and the project was awarded to the client.

Counsel: Daniel P. Scholz and Matthew D. Seeley

The firm represented the prime contractor and one of its subcontractors against a Port District on a claim for extra costs from delay and disruption caused by rock hardness well in excess of that shown in the soils report included in the project’s bid documents.   The Port District initially denied the claim in its entirety and threatened liquidated damages in excess of $ 7 million.  Through engaging in multiple rounds of mediation and the hiring of a geotechnical expert before the filing of a lawsuit, the firm successfully recovered payment to its client for $2.891 million and no assessment of liquidated damages.

Counsel: P. Randolph Finch Jr. and Daniel P. Scholz 

The firm successfully represented a client which was the lowest responsive bidder on a $2 million dollar public works project. The second low bidder filed a bid protest arguing the client had failed to properly complete the bid’s subcontractor designation form. The firm defended the client in written submissions to the public entity, establishing the alleged deviation was caused by an ambiguity in the public entity’s bid documents and was an immaterial, waivable defect. Based on the firm’s written submission, the public entity denied the protest and awarded a contract for the project to the firm’s client.

Counsel: Daniel P. Scholz and Matt D. Seeley

The firm’s client was the second low bidder on a roughly $29 million dollar public works project. The firm filed a bid protest of the apparent low bidder contending the bidder must be disqualified because of certain emails and phone calls between the low bidder and the public entity prior to the bid submission date uncovered during a Public Records Act request. The firm successfully argued the public entity must disqualify the low bidder based on an express prohibition of such communications in the public entity’s bid documents. The public entity granted the protest, disqualified the low bidder, and awarded the project to the firm’s client.

Counsel: Daniel P. Scholz and Matt D. Seeley

The firm’s client was the lowest responsive bidder on a multi-million dollar public works project. The second low bidder filed a bid protest, alleging the client’s bid was nonresponsive because: (1) the client did not hold a specialty contractors license to perform certain work, and (2) the client’s bid was materially unbalanced. The firm successfully defended the client in written submissions to the public entity, establishing the client’s Class A license covered the related specialty scope and providing evidence the bid was not materially unbalanced. Based on the firm’s written submission, the public entity denied the protest and awarded the contract for the project to the firm’s client.

Counsel: Daniel P. Scholz and Matt D. Seeley

The firm successfully represented a client which was the lowest responsive bidder on an $11 million dollar public works project. The second low bidder filed a bid protest, arguing the client’s listed Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (DVBE) subcontractor could not meet the “commercially useful function” requirements under California law. We defended the client before the California Department of General Services, with the Department ultimately denying the protest and allowing the contract for the project to be awarded to the client.

Counsel: Daniel P. Scholz and Matt D. Seeley