Unmatched Construction Litigation Experience
PKEC represents contractors, developers, and builders across California in complex construction disputes spanning both public and private works. Our construction law firm’s practice is focused on issues that arise in the course of sophisticated projects, including delay and disruption claims, payment disputes, defect allegations, and risk allocation under heavily negotiated contracts. With experience in trial, arbitration, and alternative dispute resolution, PKEC’s attorneys approach each matter with a clear understanding of how construction projects are actually built and managed.
PKEC Construction Trial and Arbitration Case Wins
Our work is informed by both legal and technical perspectives, allowing us to engage effectively with project records, scheduling issues, and expert analysis. This integrated approach supports practical, strategically grounded advocacy from early claim evaluation through resolution. Whether addressing disputes mid-project or post-completion, PKEC provides focused guidance tailored to the realities of California’s construction industry and the commercial objectives of its clients.
Suffolk Construction Company, Inc. v. PC Electrocraft, Inc. (2019). Represented Suffolk Construction Company in a 10-week jury trial in a breach of contract claim against the Los Angeles Unified School District. The jury found that LAUSD breached the contract and was liable for damages and prompt payment penalties to Suffolk.
Shimmick Construction Company, Inc./Obayashi Corporation, a Joint Venture v. San Diego County Water Authority (2018). Represented a joint venture of Shimmick Construction and Obayashi Corporation (SOJV) as plaintiff in a contract dispute with the San Diego County Water Authority over construction of the $140 million San Vicente Dam Raise project, the tallest U.S. dam raise project using roller compacted concrete. The case concerned whether SOJV or the Water Authority was responsible for extra costs, delay, and impact costs necessary to complete the project. The Water Authority also filed a counterclaim against SOJV alleging breach of contract and violation of the California False Claims Act. In January 2018, the jury returned a verdict in excess of $30 million for SOJV, excluding interest. The jury found in favor of SOJV with respect to the Water Authority’s counterclaim for breach of contract and the Owner failed to prove its false claims cross- complaint. SOJV and the Water Authority reached an agreement to settle all claims in August 2018, paying SOJV $36.5M, and the Water Authority agreed to dismiss its cross-complaint for alleged violations of the False Claims Act with prejudice.
Suffolk v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2018). Represent Suffolk Construction Company in a contract dispute against the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) involving delays and additional costs for construction of a school campus known as Central Region 9th Street Span K-8. The case was tried in 2017 in two phases. The jury in the first trial found in favor of Suffolk on the main issue of liability. The second jury awarded damages to Suffolk and its subcontractors in excess of $2.2 million and the court awarded prompt payment penalties and attorney’s fees against LAUSD.
Suffolk Construction Company v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2018). Represented Suffolk Construction Company, the general contractor hired by Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) to develop and construct a $70 million project involving multiple buildings, recreational fields, and other work. After years of no movement by LAUSD and against the threat of prompt payment penalties, the matter settled in 2018.
Taisei v. Los Angeles County Sanitation District (2016). Represented Taisei Corporation as the lead member of a joint venture that performed substantial upgrades to a waste water treatment plant in Lancaster, California, a project value of approximately $150 million. We filed a complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court to recover more than $30 million in damages and defended against cross-complaints by the District and a subcontractor. After jury selection, the case settled and Taisei received an eight-figure settlement from the District.
Taisei-T&K Joint Venture v. Inland Empire Utilities Agency et al. (2012). Obtained summary adjudication in favor of a general contractor to defeat all false claims allegations asserted by the public works owner, in a payment dispute involving improvements on a waste water treatment plant.
LaVerne Wilson v. Vermont Slauson Economic Development Corporation et al. (2012). Successfully represented homeowner, removing a mechanic’s lien and obtaining settlement to repair a home.
Osmos / Myers G.P. v. Cal. Dept. of Trans. (2011). Obtained injunction against the California Department of Transportation in connection with a bid protest involving contractor licensing requirements.
City of Los Angeles v. Chicago Bridge & Iron (2010). Represented client in appeal that successfully defended a judgment in favor of the contractor against a claim by the City of Los Angeles under the California False Claims Act. The client was also awarded its attorneys’ fees on appeal. Total recovery was approximately $20 million.
Stronghold Engineering v. Western Steel (2009). Member of trial team that represented prime contractor in contract dispute with subcontractor on an AAFES project. The matter was tried to a jury in the Riverside County Superior Court, resulting in a verdict for the client on its affirmative claim and against the subcontractor on its cross-complaint. Client was awarded attorney’s fees and costs.
Matt Construction v. Century City Doctor’s Hospital (2008). Participated in arbitration representing general contractor in prosecution of claim for unpaid work on hospital renovation project. Client received an award of $5.3 million after a three-week hearing in a AAA-sanctioned arbitration, which was more than 90% of the claim amount.
Modern Continental v. Alstom Power (2005). Member of trial team that represented a contractor in claims against an EPC contractor on the La Paloma Power Plant Project in Bakersfield, California. Obtained a $37.1 million judgment after a 10-week jury trial, which was fully secured by bonds.
Theming Solutions v. Peck-Jones / OC America et al. (2003). Obtained judgment in favor of general contractor against subcontractor based on California contractor license requirements.
Why Choose PKEC?
Our extensive experience, analytical abilities, judgment, competitive pricing, and genuine passion for construction make us the ideal choice for handling your construction-related disputes. We are committed to delivering results that align with your business goals, including helping you successfully complete your projects.
Contact PKEC to learn how we can support your construction projects and resolve any disputes that arise.