Jeffrey B. Baird

The firm served as project counsel to a developer on a private apartment project. During the project, the firm helped terminate the project’s general contractor for convenience, contract with a new construction manager, execute assignments of over 25 trade contractors, and enter into new trade contract agreements with over 5 different trades on the developer’s behalf. The developer was able to keep the project moving forward without ceasing any critical activities during this transition.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird, Esq. and Cory P. DiBene, Esq. 

The firm represented the Prime Contractor on a federal military complex project. The firm assisted the Prime Contractor in defaulting and terminating a failing subcontractor. The firm also immediately engaged with the subcontractor’s surety to assert a performance bond claim for the Prime Contractor’s default damages, takeover costs, delay, markup, and attorneys’ fees. Without litigation, the firm successfully resolved the Prime Contractor’s performance bond claim for approximately 90% of the total amount submitted. All of the Prime Contractor’s takeover costs were paid for by the subcontractor’s surety.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird, Esq. and Cory P. DiBene, Esq. 

The firm represented a multi-national communication services Prime Contractor on a large-scale telecom project spanning across multiple states. One of the client’s subcontractors during the project submitted claims exceeding $1,300,000.00 in total. The firm immediately engaged the subcontractor in rejecting the claims. Without litigation, the firm successfully resolved the subcontractor’s claims for approximately $112,000.00 – far less than the cost of defense.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird, Esq. and Cory P. DiBene, Esq. 

The firm represented a private developer in the drafting, negotiation, and execution of a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) agreement with a top 20 ENR contractor for a mixed-use project in Southern California exceeding $65,000,000.00.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird, Esq. and Cory P. DiBene, Esq. 

The firm represented a Prime Contractor on a large-scale public college project in Southern California. The Prime Contractor received a payment claim from its subcontractor during the project. The firm counseled the Prime Contractor in negotiations with the subcontractor and was able to resolve the claim for less than 1/3rd of the total submitted amount.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird, Esq. and Cory P. DiBene, Esq. 

The firm represented a Prime Contractor on a Navy docks project. The firm helped prepare the Prime Contractor’s Request for Equitable Adjustment (REA) to the Navy for Project changes and escalation costs. The REA also included remobilization costs and attorneys’ fees. The client successfully recovered almost the full amount of the submitted REA without having to claim.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird, Esq. and Cory P. DiBene, Esq. 

The firm represented a Prime Contractor on a public college project in Southern California. One of the Prime Contractor’s subcontractors was failing to perform. The firm defaulted, terminated, and requested substitution of the subcontractor.  The firm successfully represented the Prime Contractor in a substitution hearing with the Public Owner.  The firm also pursued a performance bond claim against the subcontractor’s surety for the Prime Contractor’s default damages, cost to complete, delay, and attorneys’ fees. The firm successfully recovered approximately 95% of the Prime Contractor’s claim paid by the subcontractor’s surety without litigation.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird, Esq. and Cory P. DiBene, Esq. 

The firm represented the Prime Contractor on public water infrastructure project exceeding $35,000,000.00 in value.  The Prime Contractor and Owner were in a dispute regarding project claims for time and costs.  Both the Prime Contractor and Owner asserted claims against the other.  The firm was engaged as project counsel and prosecuted the Prime Contractor’s claims against the Owner.  The firm helped close out the Project with a net recovery to the Prime Contractor exceeding $10,000,000.00.

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

The firm’s client did not receive payment for a fully performed sales contract. The firm immediately engaged in collections pursuit with the breaching party. Without litigation, the firm recovered the payment in full within 10 days of engagement for the client.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird, Esq. and Cory P. DiBene, Esq. 

The firm represented a prime contractor on a lease-leaseback public work of improvement. One of the client’s suppliers submitted a six figure payment claim in excess of the base contract balance. The supplier also served a stop payment notice on the project’s owner. The client disputed the payment claim based on the contract terms with the supplier. The firm immediately engaged the supplier on the disputed payment claim. The firm negotiated with the supplier to waive the payment claim in its entirety. Without any alternative dispute resolution or litigation, the firm was able to secure a full release of the stop payment notice from the supplier. The client was then able to close out the supplier’s contract with a final payment only as to the base contract balance.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird, Esq. and Cory P. DiBene, Esq. 

The Firm represented an owner-developer on a private work of improvement consisting of multiple apartment buildings. The owner-developer contracted directly with a design professional to provide various professional services at the project. The Firm represented the owner-developer in a claim against the design professional for alleged errors, omissions, mistakes, and negligence in the professional services rendered to the project. Based on such alleged deficiencies, the owner-developer incurred both re-work and extra work costs. The Firm settled the claim without litigation resulting in the owner-developer recouping 100% of re-work and extra work costs, in addition to recouping all attorneys’ fees and expert costs incurred.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird, Esq. and Cory P. DiBene, Esq. 

The firm represented the prime contractor in a claim by a school district that the installed window system was defective.  The firm reviewed the installation of the windows to confirm the product and method of installation complied with the contract documents.

The firm took an aggressive position that the design was defective and was the sole reason for the window system failure.  After multiple-rounds of meetings and a mediation, the firm was able to successfully negotiate a settlement with no out-of-pocket payment by the prime contractor and the cost of replacement and repair covered by the project architect.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird, Esq. and Daniel P. Scholz, Esq.

​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 multi-national prime contractor on a telecommunications infrastructure project spanning across multiple states.  The firm’s client received claims from its subcontractor during the project in excess of $1,400,000, for what the subcontractor contended were amounts owed for changed scope, delays, and inefficiencies on the project.  The firm immediately began investigating the issues of entitlement and quantum concerning the subcontractor’s claims as part of the pre-litigation dispute resolution process.  The firm’s investigation revealed significant deficiencies with the subcontractor’s claims.  Within a few months of the firm’s engagement, the prime contractor, without litigation, obtained resolution of the subcontractor’s claims for far less than anticipated defense costs.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Cory P. DiBene

Client design-builder had an approximately $14 million dispute with its concrete subcontractor related to construction of a large airport rental car facility.  The subcontractor attempted several variations of mechanic’s liens against what it alleged was a leasehold interest held by the private developer financing the project and client design-builder.  The firm challenged the propriety and validity of the liens in court as they improperly imposed a lien on public property or stated a claim against a non-existent private property interest.  The court granted the firm’s challenges and awarded the client its attorneys’ fees.  The successful challenge of the liens contributed to an early favorable settlement in the concurrent arbitration proceedings between the parties which avoided significant litigation costs.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird, Kelly A. Floyd, and Cory P. DiBene

The firm represented the prime contractor in a claim by a school district that the installed window system was defective.  The firm reviewed the installation of the windows to confirm the product and method of installation complied with the contract documents.

The firm took an aggressive position that the design was defective and was the sole reason for the window system failure.  After multiple-rounds of meetings and a mediation, the firm was able to successfully negotiate a settlement with no out-of-pocket payment by the prime contractor and the cost of replacement and repair covered by the project architect.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Daniel P. Scholz

The firm represented the prime contractor in a claim by a school district that the installed window system was defective.  The firm reviewed the installation of the windows to confirm the product and method of installation complied with the contract documents.

The firm took an aggressive position that the design was defective and was the sole reason for the window system failure.  After multiple-rounds of meetings and a mediation, the firm was able to successfully negotiate a settlement with no out-of-pocket payment by the prime contractor and the cost of replacement and repair covered by the project architect.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Daniel P. Scholz

The firm represented the prime contractor in a dispute with an electrical subcontractor over the performance of work on a special operations facility for the United States Military involving $12 million in claims.

Default determined. Swift action taken.

The firm assisted in the investigation of the subcontractor’s performance and improper workmanship — including the subcontractor’s responsibility for project delay —and determined the subcontractor was in default of its subcontract obligations.  The subcontractor was terminated, which allowed the firm’s client to finish the project efficiently and avoid potential liability to the project owner for significant delay damages.

The subcontractor filed suit in federal court against the firm’s client for wrongful termination.

Money saved. Time saved, too.

Armed with the details obtained through our investigation of the subcontractor, the firm negotiated a settlement of the case for less than 50 percent of the estimated cost to defend.  This allowed the client to smoothly close out the project and avoid an anticipated two years of litigation and devotion of personnel costs and involvement.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird and Daniel P. Scholz

The firm represented the prime contractor in a dispute with a Fortune 500 multi-national owner over construction of a flagship retail store.  The project was delayed — resulting in increased costs due to the delay and inefficiencies.  Each party claimed the other was responsible.  The dispute involved $28 million in claims between the parties.

Rigorous research and analysis made all the difference.

The firm sued the owner for the increased costs.  The owner initially refused to discuss a reasonable settlement and cross-complained against the client.  Pressure from the firm’s successful demurrer to the owner’s cross-complaint and substantiation of the client’s claims through analysis of terabytes of project records produced the desired effect.  Prior to costly depositions — and well short of trial — the firm obtained a favorable monetary settlement for the client.

Counsel: Jeffrey B. Baird, Louis J. Blum, and Daniel P. Scholz

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.

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.