skip to Main Content
Image of Jeffrey B. Baird, a partner and construction law attorney at Finch, Thornton & Baird, LLP.

Jeffrey B. Baird

Partner

The vast majority of Jeff’s legal experience is exclusive to construction industry matters and he is highly knowledgeable about construction company operations, industry practices, and clients’ cost concerns. Jeff is uniquely prepared to resolve most claims quickly and efficiently — often without prolonged litigation.

(858) 737-3100; Ext. 3036

(858) 737-3101

Jeff Baird is a highly effective litigator and negotiator who counsels business owners and executives, in-house counsel, and project managers regarding construction claims, course-of-performance strategy, contract requirements, and construction-related transactions.  His clients include general contractors, owners, developers, and subcontractors.

The vast majority of Jeff’s legal experience is exclusive to construction industry matters and he is highly knowledgeable about construction company operations, industry practices, and clients’ cost concerns.  He has professional relationships with many construction industry attorneys that represent school districts, cities, counties, other public agencies, private owners, and various industry participants.  The result?  Jeff is uniquely prepared to resolve most claims quickly and efficiently — often without costly litigation.  When litigation is necessary, Jeff’s command of the key legal and construction issues gives his clients the upper hand.

DELAY, INEFFICIENCY, AND EXTRA WORK CLAIMS

Construction project participants regularly suffer the monetary and operational pains caused by design mistakes, project inefficiencies, delays, interferences, and other unforeseen issues.  Jeff knows the right questions to ask, the right information to obtain, and which legal strategies to deploy.  This helps ease client frustrations, contain disputes, and accelerate the resolution process.

FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS

Early assessment of the most practical strategies for unresolved project issues is essential to avoid headaches and unnecessary expense.  Whether he is evaluating a potential request for equitable adjustment or appealing a contracting officer’s final decision, over twenty years of experience empowers Jeff to hit the ground running.

CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROJECTS

Negotiation of key construction obligations of a contract requires advance knowledge of how such terms will be interpreted and used in litigation.  Jeff’s unique construction experiences allow him to strategically negotiate contracts for hard-bid, design-build, and various other delivery method formats for public and private construction projects.  Jeff can efficiently advise on contract negotiation disputes between owners and prime contractors and between prime contractors and subcontractors.

NAVIGATING PUBLIC WORKS CLAIMS PROCESSES

Navigating contractual dispute resolution, Public Contract Code and Government Code requirements, and evaluating the timing of claim submissions and strategy for resolution opportunities is vital to limiting cost overruns and project losses.  Jeff’s strong problem solving and negotiating skills provide clients with the unique opportunity to resolve claims early or to properly set the stage for litigation when necessary.  And his in-depth knowledge of the many public works claims processes allows clients to successfully preserve their claims rights on public jobs.

LIENS, STOP PAYMENT NOTICES, AND BOND CLAIMS

Avoiding mistakes and proper timing are critical in pursuing all available remedies to recovery money owed on a construction project, whether the claim is disputed or undisputed.  Jeff has worked on such matters on a daily basis for more than twenty years and that translates to immediate, experienced advice without a learning curve.

  • Construction litigation
  • Public works of improvement and government contracts, including projects with local public agencies, cities, counties, state agencies, and federal government
  • Delay, inefficiency, and extra work claims
  • Coordination with schedule, design, accounting, and subject matter experts on construction claims
  • Contract defaults
  • Surety obligations
  • Mechanic’s liens
  • Stop payment notices
  • Payment bond claims
  • Performance bond claims
  • Requests for equitable adjustments (REAs)
  • Contract Disputes Act claims
  • Miller Act claims
  • Counsel on specialized delivery methods, including lease-leaseback and construction management at-risk projects (CMAR)
  • Transactional matters specializing in the drafting and review of construction project agreements and public procurement compliance
  • Local, state, and federal bid protests
  • General business litigation
General Contractor v. Subcontractor

The firm successfully defended a general contractor and its surety against a lawsuit from a mechanical subcontractor. The subcontractor quit work on a construction project because of a dispute over payment with the general contractor. The subcontractor’s lawsuit sought approximately $200,000 plus attorneys’ fees for alleged contract and extra work. The firm brought a cross-complaint on behalf of the general contractor against the subcontractor for damages resulting from the subcontractor’s failure to complete its work on the construction project.

Read More
Early in litigation, the firm successfully obtained a writ of attachment against the subcontractor for its completion costs, which required the subcontractor to turn over the amount to the County Sheriff until the lawsuit was resolved. Additionally, the firm brought a motion for summary judgment against the subcontractor seeking to dismiss all of the subcontractor’s claims against the general contractor and surety and to award the general contractor damages against the subcontract. The court tentatively granted the firm’s motion for summary judgment. Prior to the motion for summary judgment being officially ruled upon, the subcontractor agreed to dismiss its lawsuit with prejudice with no liability or amount owed by the firm’s client or surety.

Extra Work Claims – Subcontractor v. General Contractor

While working on a large community park project for a Southern California city, the firm’s subcontractor client encountered multiple unforeseen conditions and was directed by the project’s general contractor to perform significant extra work and change work. When the general contractor refused to pay for the extra work, the firm sued the general contractor and the city. The general contractor initially refused to discuss a reasonable settlement. However, pressure from the firm’s written discovery and substantiation of the client’s claims produced the desired effect. Prior to costly depositions — and well short of trial — the firm obtained a favorable settlement for the client.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Kelly A. Floyd

Defense of Federal Miller Act Claim

The firm’s client was the prime contractor on a federal design-build construction project on a military base in Northern California. The project plumbing and HVAC subcontractor submitted inflated billings for work on the project and claimed additional costs relating to delays and labor inefficiencies. The design-builder denied the subcontractor’s claim and the subcontractor demanded arbitration for approximately $1.9 million against the firm’s client and the client’s Miller Act surety. The firm represented the design-builder and the surety. After limited discovery, the firm worked closely with the contractor to investigate and analyze the subcontractor’s claims relating to delays and inefficiencies and refuted them in a comprehensive presentation during mediation. As a result of the firm’s efforts, the subcontractor realized the inflated nature of its claims and agreed to settle the action for barely a third of its original demand.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Daniel P. Scholz

General Contractor v. Public Owner

The firm’s client was the general contractor on a local public works project.  The general contractor contended the project was delayed and disrupted by the public owner, the project architect and the project’s construction manager.  The general contractor claimed that the public owner’s sole source specifications were illegal and caused the delays to the project. 

Read More
The public owner claimed liquidated damages and that certain work items were either improperly or insufficiently completed and sought approximately $500,000 from the general contractor.  The firm represented the contractor in settlement conferences and mediation.  As a result of the firm’s efforts, the public owner released its claims against the contractor for liquidated damages and backcharges and agreed to pay the contractor $675,000 to resolve the claims.  The firm’s knowledge of legal limitations on public works specifications, project delay, and extra work claims allowed the general contractor to succeed in its claims without a lawsuit against the public owner, allowing the contractor to minimize its claims history.

Litigation Of General Contractor Mechanic’s Liens Against Commercial Project Owner

The firm represented a general contractor relating to a construction of a charter school in San Diego, California. After failing to be fully paid, the general contractor turned to our firm for assistance. We assisted in recording a mechanic’s lien against the property and filed a lawsuit against the charter school and the property owner for approximately $136,000. Upon the recording of the lien and filing a lawsuit, the school went out of business and the firm successfully negotiated settlement with the property owner. The firm’s client received full payment in the matter.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Daniel P. Scholz

Bid Protest – San Diego Unified

The firm’s client was the low bidder for a San Diego Unified School District contract. The client had inadvertently failed to provide the correct license number for one of its listed subcontractors. The client provided the District with the correct number within 24 hours. However, the District found the client’s bid non-responsive and rejected it. The firm protested the District’s rejection based on California law that allows contractors to remedy such bid errors within 24 hours. Through the firm’s knowledge of bidding laws and persuasion, the District accepted the firm’s protest and rescinded its rejection of the client’s bid. The firm’s client was then awarded the $3 million project.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Daniel P. Scholz

General Contractor v. Subcontractor

The firm successfully brought a lawsuit by a general contractor against a subcontractor. The subcontractor quit work on a construction project because of a dispute over payment and scope with the general contractor. The general contractor’s lawsuit sought damages for delays to the project and extra costs to supplement the subcontractor’s work. The subcontractor brought a cross-complaint against the general contractor for alleged damages resulting from a payment dispute on a separate construction project. Because of the firm’s knowledge of construction delays and project requirements, the firm successfully negotiated a settlement with the subcontractor with the general contractor receiving installment payments of least $300,000. Additionally, the subcontractor agreed to dismiss its cross-complaint with prejudice with no liability or amount owed by the firm’s client or surety.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Daniel P. Scholz

Wage and Hour Class Action v. Contractor

The firm defended a contractor against a class action lawsuit based on alleged violations of wage and hour and prevailing wage laws. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of over 400 current and former employees. An object of the litigation was to force the contractor to sign a union contract. The lawsuit sought over $5 million in damages plus attorneys’ fees and Labor Code penalties. The firm successfully removed the lawsuit from state court to federal court, limited initial discovery, and successfully defended the plaintiffs’ attempts to remand the lawsuit to state court. To avoid costly depositions, a class certification motion, other discovery, and trial, the firm participated early in conferences with a federal magistrate judge. By addressing the issues and claims early in the litigation, the firm successfully defended the contractor from labor organization efforts and obtained a settlement agreement from plaintiffs including full releases of all claims for the prior four years. The firm provided an efficient and quick resolution of the complex matter, saving the client time and money.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Daniel P. Scholz

Brewer Corporation dba Brewer Crane & Rigging v. TM Structural, Inc.; and Division 8, Inc. v. Mi Arbolito

The firm represented two clients, Brewer Crane & Rigging Company and Division 8, Inc. with claims for payment on a private 14 unit luxury condominium project in San Diego, California. Despite an insolvent developer, the firm recovered judgment against a private-money lender on bonded stop notices claims for the principal amount of nearly $275,000.00, as well as pre-judgment interest, bond premiums, attorneys’ fees and costs.

Read More
The case concerned a $13.5 million construction loan which the defendant lender ceased funding as the project property value fell to less than that amount, and claimed it was not a construction lender for purposes of stop notice claims. Ultimately the owner went through bankruptcy and a senior lender foreclosed, thereby preventing either our clients or the defendant lender from recovering anything through their liens against the real property. The firm successfully argued that all of the construction loan funds not used to pay construction costs, including points, interest, fees, etc., whether paid to the defendant lender, paid to its participating investor/lenders, or as reimbursement for transaction costs, had to be disgorged for the benefit of the bonded stop notice claimants.

San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2007-00074230

Architectural Aluminum Window Systems, Inc. v. Dick Pacific Construction Co., Ltd.

The firm’s client was a window subcontractor on a federal project at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. As one of the first federal projects to be bid in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, disputes arose over who was responsible for the enhanced blast requirements. Upon completion of its work, the firm’s client pursued change order and contract balance claims against the general contractor and the Army. After reserving its client’s Miller Act claim, the firm pursued a certified pass-through claim to the Army.

Read More
Approximately fifty percent of the certified claim was paid after the parties engaged in informal discussions. The remainder of the certified claim was denied and the firm then appealed the contracting officer’s decision to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Under ASBCA guidelines, the parties engaged in mediation and the firm’s client reached a negotiated settlement with the Army on the appealed claims. The firm’s client subsequently reached a negotiated settlement with the general contractor on the contract balance.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals No. 57172; United States District Court, District of Hawaii Civil No. 07-00603 DAE LEK

Dhando Investments, Inc. v. Staley, Inc.

The firm’s client was an Arkansas corporation that was sued in Los Angeles for various business torts that allegedly occurred in Arkansas. The firm successfully obtained a dismissal of the lawsuit by establishing that its client was not subject to California’s jurisdiction because of its limited contacts to California and the foreign nature of the plaintiff’s claims. The lawsuit was dismissed at little cost and inconvenience to the firm’s client. The litigation has not been pursued by the plaintiff in a different jurisdiction.

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. KC058493

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Christopher R. Sillari

The Weitz Company I, Inc. v. Brethren Hillcrest Homes

The firm’s client was the general contractor charged with expanding and renovating a large retirement community. The project was delayed for more than one year. The parties disputed liability for the delay. The owner sought over $1.5 million in liquidated damages from the general contractor. A five day arbitration resulted in the firm successfully defending the owner’s delay claims and the litigation resulted in a net recovery for the firm’s client.

Arbitration Proceeding Case No. 1240019438

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird, David W. Smiley, and Christopher R. Sillari

Jeff Baird is a highly effective litigator and negotiator who counsels business owners and executives, in-house counsel, and project managers regarding construction claims, course-of-performance strategy, contract requirements, and construction-related transactions.  His clients include general contractors, owners, developers, and subcontractors.

The vast majority of Jeff’s legal experience is exclusive to construction industry matters and he is highly knowledgeable about construction company operations, industry practices, and clients’ cost concerns.  He has professional relationships with many construction industry attorneys that represent school districts, cities, counties, other public agencies, private owners, and various industry participants.  The result?  Jeff is uniquely prepared to resolve most claims quickly and efficiently — often without costly litigation.  When litigation is necessary, Jeff’s command of the key legal and construction issues gives his clients the upper hand.

DELAY, INEFFICIENCY, AND EXTRA WORK CLAIMS

Construction project participants regularly suffer the monetary and operational pains caused by design mistakes, project inefficiencies, delays, interferences, and other unforeseen issues.  Jeff knows the right questions to ask, the right information to obtain, and which legal strategies to deploy.  This helps ease client frustrations, contain disputes, and accelerate the resolution process.

FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS

Early assessment of the most practical strategies for unresolved project issues is essential to avoid headaches and unnecessary expense.  Whether he is evaluating a potential request for equitable adjustment or appealing a contracting officer’s final decision, over twenty years of experience empowers Jeff to hit the ground running.

CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE PROJECTS

Negotiation of key construction obligations of a contract requires advance knowledge of how such terms will be interpreted and used in litigation.  Jeff’s unique construction experiences allow him to strategically negotiate contracts for hard-bid, design-build, and various other delivery method formats for public and private construction projects.  Jeff can efficiently advise on contract negotiation disputes between owners and prime contractors and between prime contractors and subcontractors.

NAVIGATING PUBLIC WORKS CLAIMS PROCESSES

Navigating contractual dispute resolution, Public Contract Code and Government Code requirements, and evaluating the timing of claim submissions and strategy for resolution opportunities is vital to limiting cost overruns and project losses.  Jeff’s strong problem solving and negotiating skills provide clients with the unique opportunity to resolve claims early or to properly set the stage for litigation when necessary.  And his in-depth knowledge of the many public works claims processes allows clients to successfully preserve their claims rights on public jobs.

LIENS, STOP PAYMENT NOTICES, AND BOND CLAIMS

Avoiding mistakes and proper timing are critical in pursuing all available remedies to recovery money owed on a construction project, whether the claim is disputed or undisputed.  Jeff has worked on such matters on a daily basis for more than twenty years and that translates to immediate, experienced advice without a learning curve.

  • Construction litigation
  • Public works of improvement and government contracts, including projects with local public agencies, cities, counties, state agencies, and federal government
  • Delay, inefficiency, and extra work claims
  • Coordination with schedule, design, accounting, and subject matter experts on construction claims
  • Contract defaults
  • Surety obligations
  • Mechanic’s liens
  • Stop payment notices
  • Payment bond claims
  • Performance bond claims
  • Requests for equitable adjustments (REAs)
  • Contract Disputes Act claims
  • Miller Act claims
  • Counsel on specialized delivery methods, including lease-leaseback and construction management at-risk projects (CMAR)
  • Transactional matters specializing in the drafting and review of construction project agreements and public procurement compliance
  • Local, state, and federal bid protests
  • General business litigation
General Contractor v. Subcontractor

The firm successfully defended a general contractor and its surety against a lawsuit from a mechanical subcontractor. The subcontractor quit work on a construction project because of a dispute over payment with the general contractor. The subcontractor’s lawsuit sought approximately $200,000 plus attorneys’ fees for alleged contract and extra work. The firm brought a cross-complaint on behalf of the general contractor against the subcontractor for damages resulting from the subcontractor’s failure to complete its work on the construction project.

Read More
Early in litigation, the firm successfully obtained a writ of attachment against the subcontractor for its completion costs, which required the subcontractor to turn over the amount to the County Sheriff until the lawsuit was resolved. Additionally, the firm brought a motion for summary judgment against the subcontractor seeking to dismiss all of the subcontractor’s claims against the general contractor and surety and to award the general contractor damages against the subcontract. The court tentatively granted the firm’s motion for summary judgment. Prior to the motion for summary judgment being officially ruled upon, the subcontractor agreed to dismiss its lawsuit with prejudice with no liability or amount owed by the firm’s client or surety.

Extra Work Claims – Subcontractor v. General Contractor

While working on a large community park project for a Southern California city, the firm’s subcontractor client encountered multiple unforeseen conditions and was directed by the project’s general contractor to perform significant extra work and change work. When the general contractor refused to pay for the extra work, the firm sued the general contractor and the city. The general contractor initially refused to discuss a reasonable settlement. However, pressure from the firm’s written discovery and substantiation of the client’s claims produced the desired effect. Prior to costly depositions — and well short of trial — the firm obtained a favorable settlement for the client.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Kelly A. Floyd

Defense of Federal Miller Act Claim

The firm’s client was the prime contractor on a federal design-build construction project on a military base in Northern California. The project plumbing and HVAC subcontractor submitted inflated billings for work on the project and claimed additional costs relating to delays and labor inefficiencies. The design-builder denied the subcontractor’s claim and the subcontractor demanded arbitration for approximately $1.9 million against the firm’s client and the client’s Miller Act surety. The firm represented the design-builder and the surety. After limited discovery, the firm worked closely with the contractor to investigate and analyze the subcontractor’s claims relating to delays and inefficiencies and refuted them in a comprehensive presentation during mediation. As a result of the firm’s efforts, the subcontractor realized the inflated nature of its claims and agreed to settle the action for barely a third of its original demand.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Daniel P. Scholz

General Contractor v. Public Owner

The firm’s client was the general contractor on a local public works project.  The general contractor contended the project was delayed and disrupted by the public owner, the project architect and the project’s construction manager.  The general contractor claimed that the public owner’s sole source specifications were illegal and caused the delays to the project. 

Read More
The public owner claimed liquidated damages and that certain work items were either improperly or insufficiently completed and sought approximately $500,000 from the general contractor.  The firm represented the contractor in settlement conferences and mediation.  As a result of the firm’s efforts, the public owner released its claims against the contractor for liquidated damages and backcharges and agreed to pay the contractor $675,000 to resolve the claims.  The firm’s knowledge of legal limitations on public works specifications, project delay, and extra work claims allowed the general contractor to succeed in its claims without a lawsuit against the public owner, allowing the contractor to minimize its claims history.

Litigation Of General Contractor Mechanic’s Liens Against Commercial Project Owner

The firm represented a general contractor relating to a construction of a charter school in San Diego, California. After failing to be fully paid, the general contractor turned to our firm for assistance. We assisted in recording a mechanic’s lien against the property and filed a lawsuit against the charter school and the property owner for approximately $136,000. Upon the recording of the lien and filing a lawsuit, the school went out of business and the firm successfully negotiated settlement with the property owner. The firm’s client received full payment in the matter.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Daniel P. Scholz

Bid Protest – San Diego Unified

The firm’s client was the low bidder for a San Diego Unified School District contract. The client had inadvertently failed to provide the correct license number for one of its listed subcontractors. The client provided the District with the correct number within 24 hours. However, the District found the client’s bid non-responsive and rejected it. The firm protested the District’s rejection based on California law that allows contractors to remedy such bid errors within 24 hours. Through the firm’s knowledge of bidding laws and persuasion, the District accepted the firm’s protest and rescinded its rejection of the client’s bid. The firm’s client was then awarded the $3 million project.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Daniel P. Scholz

General Contractor v. Subcontractor

The firm successfully brought a lawsuit by a general contractor against a subcontractor. The subcontractor quit work on a construction project because of a dispute over payment and scope with the general contractor. The general contractor’s lawsuit sought damages for delays to the project and extra costs to supplement the subcontractor’s work. The subcontractor brought a cross-complaint against the general contractor for alleged damages resulting from a payment dispute on a separate construction project. Because of the firm’s knowledge of construction delays and project requirements, the firm successfully negotiated a settlement with the subcontractor with the general contractor receiving installment payments of least $300,000. Additionally, the subcontractor agreed to dismiss its cross-complaint with prejudice with no liability or amount owed by the firm’s client or surety.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Daniel P. Scholz

Wage and Hour Class Action v. Contractor

The firm defended a contractor against a class action lawsuit based on alleged violations of wage and hour and prevailing wage laws. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of over 400 current and former employees. An object of the litigation was to force the contractor to sign a union contract. The lawsuit sought over $5 million in damages plus attorneys’ fees and Labor Code penalties. The firm successfully removed the lawsuit from state court to federal court, limited initial discovery, and successfully defended the plaintiffs’ attempts to remand the lawsuit to state court. To avoid costly depositions, a class certification motion, other discovery, and trial, the firm participated early in conferences with a federal magistrate judge. By addressing the issues and claims early in the litigation, the firm successfully defended the contractor from labor organization efforts and obtained a settlement agreement from plaintiffs including full releases of all claims for the prior four years. The firm provided an efficient and quick resolution of the complex matter, saving the client time and money.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Daniel P. Scholz

Brewer Corporation dba Brewer Crane & Rigging v. TM Structural, Inc.; and Division 8, Inc. v. Mi Arbolito

The firm represented two clients, Brewer Crane & Rigging Company and Division 8, Inc. with claims for payment on a private 14 unit luxury condominium project in San Diego, California. Despite an insolvent developer, the firm recovered judgment against a private-money lender on bonded stop notices claims for the principal amount of nearly $275,000.00, as well as pre-judgment interest, bond premiums, attorneys’ fees and costs.

Read More
The case concerned a $13.5 million construction loan which the defendant lender ceased funding as the project property value fell to less than that amount, and claimed it was not a construction lender for purposes of stop notice claims. Ultimately the owner went through bankruptcy and a senior lender foreclosed, thereby preventing either our clients or the defendant lender from recovering anything through their liens against the real property. The firm successfully argued that all of the construction loan funds not used to pay construction costs, including points, interest, fees, etc., whether paid to the defendant lender, paid to its participating investor/lenders, or as reimbursement for transaction costs, had to be disgorged for the benefit of the bonded stop notice claimants.

San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2007-00074230

Architectural Aluminum Window Systems, Inc. v. Dick Pacific Construction Co., Ltd.

The firm’s client was a window subcontractor on a federal project at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. As one of the first federal projects to be bid in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, disputes arose over who was responsible for the enhanced blast requirements. Upon completion of its work, the firm’s client pursued change order and contract balance claims against the general contractor and the Army. After reserving its client’s Miller Act claim, the firm pursued a certified pass-through claim to the Army.

Read More
Approximately fifty percent of the certified claim was paid after the parties engaged in informal discussions. The remainder of the certified claim was denied and the firm then appealed the contracting officer’s decision to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Under ASBCA guidelines, the parties engaged in mediation and the firm’s client reached a negotiated settlement with the Army on the appealed claims. The firm’s client subsequently reached a negotiated settlement with the general contractor on the contract balance.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals No. 57172; United States District Court, District of Hawaii Civil No. 07-00603 DAE LEK

Dhando Investments, Inc. v. Staley, Inc.

The firm’s client was an Arkansas corporation that was sued in Los Angeles for various business torts that allegedly occurred in Arkansas. The firm successfully obtained a dismissal of the lawsuit by establishing that its client was not subject to California’s jurisdiction because of its limited contacts to California and the foreign nature of the plaintiff’s claims. The lawsuit was dismissed at little cost and inconvenience to the firm’s client. The litigation has not been pursued by the plaintiff in a different jurisdiction.

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. KC058493

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Christopher R. Sillari

The Weitz Company I, Inc. v. Brethren Hillcrest Homes

The firm’s client was the general contractor charged with expanding and renovating a large retirement community. The project was delayed for more than one year. The parties disputed liability for the delay. The owner sought over $1.5 million in liquidated damages from the general contractor. A five day arbitration resulted in the firm successfully defending the owner’s delay claims and the litigation resulted in a net recovery for the firm’s client.

Arbitration Proceeding Case No. 1240019438

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird, David W. Smiley, and Christopher R. Sillari

The vast majority of Jeff’s legal experience is exclusive to construction industry matters and he is highly knowledgeable about construction company operations, industry practices, and clients’ cost concerns. Jeff is uniquely prepared to resolve most claims quickly and efficiently — often without prolonged litigation.

(858) 737-3100; Ext. 3036

(858) 737-3101

Christy E. Holliday
Legal Secretary
  • Construction Law
    • Claims & Disputes
    • Local Agency, Municipal & State Contracts
    • Federal Procurement & Claims
    • Project Counsel
    • Prime Contracts & Subcontracts
    • Labor & Employment
    • Collections
  • Business & Commercial Transactions
  • California: State and Federal Courts
  • U.S. District Courts of California: Central, Eastern, Northern, Southern
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
  • University of San Diego School of Law, J.D.
  • University of California at Santa Barbara, B.A., History
  • State Bar of California
  • San Diego County Bar Association
  • Practice before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals
  • San Diego Super Lawyer for Construction 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018
  • 2016 Best of the Bar by the San Diego Business Journal
  • Top 10 San Diego Construction & Real Estate Law Attorney 2008, 2011, 2012 and 2013 by the San Diego Daily Transcript

Mr. Baird is an accomplished public speaker and regularly addresses the construction community on a range of training and educational topics, including:

Performance & Closeout: Project Management Mistakes And How To Avoid Them 

Contracts: Project Management Mistakes And How To Avoid Them 

How To Prove And Recover Your Losses: Change Orders And Claims (Costing And Management)

Contract/Subcontract Review Strategies

Contract Negotiation Best Practices

Latest Trends For Recovery Of Lost Productivity And Delay Claims

Indemnity And Defense Obligations In Construction Contracts: The Impact Of SB 474

The Little Red School House: Alternatives To Hard Bid Construction In California

Image promoting "DIR Enforcement of Skilled & Trained Workforce Requirements" seminar to be presented at AGC San Diego by Finch, Thornton & Baird, LLP partners Chad Wishchuk and Jeffrey Baird.
Back To Top