At the Los Angeles, California law firm of Baker & Associates, we represent clients
throughout Southern California including the communities of Santa Clarita Valley,
Santa Monica, Northridge, Porter Ranch, Simi Valley, Studio City, Encino, Thousand
Oaks, Westlake Village and Valencia.
Los Angeles County | Orange County | Ventura County | San Bernardino County | Riverside
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation.
This litigation involved an easement granted to Plaintiff, the original developers
of a well known resort. Our clients were former owners/managers of the Resort. The
plaintiff was the owner of property adjacent to the Resort. This case involved various
irritations that plaintiff alleged to have arisen from the Resort's use of an easement
that runs over plaintiff’s property, adjacent to the Resort’s convention facility.
Plaintiff complained that the Resort's owners, previous owners, operators, and previous
operators, had “overburdened” the easement with employee shuttles and delivery truck
traffic. The case settled shortly after the Mandatory Settlement Conference, with
our firm convincing plaintiff to dismiss the case due to the fact that they had no
supportable case against our client, and risked an adverse judgement, and possibly
malicious prosecution exposure.
Plaintiff v. Our Clients, Automotive Dealerships
This was a class-action case. There were over 1,000 class members, who all alleged
various wage and hour violations by our clients, owners of several Southern California
auto dealerships. The litigation consumed over five years of firm time to defend.
At the third private mediation the class counsel demanded over $20,000,000 to settle
the suit. After 14 hours of mediation the case settled on a “claims-made” basis for
Plaintiff Construction Co, Our Client, v. School District
This was a long and heated battle against the School District, in a decision originally
certified for partial publication by the California Court of Appeal. (The California
Supreme Court later de-published the case, holding it posed serious threat to public
entities statewide). The case concerned a dispute between our client, a public works
general contractor, and the School District over a school retrofit project. The contractor
asserted they had been wrongfully terminated from the project and not allowed to
complete their work. The School District claimed that Plaintiff Construction Co,
our client, had breached the parties’ contract and had not adequately responded to
a “Three-day Notice to Proceed”. The jury returned an 11-1 verdict overwhelmingly
in favor of our client Plaintiff, awarding them $954,197.00 in damages, including
a landmark award of over $500,000 of lost profits, to the School District’s award
of just $1.00.
The trial judge, commented later:
"The case was hotly litigated, very competently litigated. The jury made its decisions
on the evidence in the case based upon the credibility of the witnesses, based upon
the strength and weight of the written evidence, and this court is not inclined to
In spite of the fact that the decision was ultimately de-published, it was a significant
victory for our client, and all public works contractors. The principles it announced
stand as a blueprint for any case involving a claim for damages resulting from lost
Claimant, Our Client, and a Business Center, LLC
This was a binding arbitration concerning a construction project on a commercial
office building. Our client, a general contractor, and the building owner entered
into a contract, which included several addendums. The project was to take 150 days.
Instead, it took 393 days. This delay, caused by the actions of owner, formed the
basis of the claim made by our client. In addition, the owner failed to pay certain
of the amounts due under the final invoice. Further damages were incurred as the
result of the decision by the owner to permit tenants to remain in the building while
construction was ongoing. The owner asserted offsets that would have completely negated
our client’s claim. After six full days of hearings the arbitrator awarded our client
Plaintiff v. Defendant, Our Client
This action arose out of certain painting and contracting work performed by plaintiff
at a well-known Hollywood nightclub owned by our client. Plaintiff’s painting work
included the application of a base paint and final “faux” finish which made the painted
wall surfaces appear textured and aged. Plaintiff asserted that she was an “artist”,
and not a painting contractor. However, plaintiff’s own invoices showed that the
bulk of services provided by her consisted of straight painting, drywall repairs,
concrete repairs, water sealing, sanding and spackling, applications of primer and
base coat and other services requiring a contractor’s license in California. It was
undisputed that plaintiff never possessed a contractor’s license. Applicable law
in California prohibits an unlicensed contractor from recovering for its work.
Therefore, plaintiff’s lack of licensure meant that as a matter of law she was not
entitled to any compensation for the work performed, and our client was entitled
to recover all monies already paid for such painting work. Our firm filed a motion
to bifurcate and have the court rule on this legal issue. On the Friday prior to
trial the court denied the motion, essentially ruling that plaintiff did not need
a license. The next Monday we renewed the motion, at which time the court changed
its opinion 180 degrees and indicated it was inclined to grant the motion. The court
then strongly urged the parties to attempt to settle the case, stating to plaintiff
that she had a “big problem” with her case. The case was settled on terms very favorable
to our client.