City of Los Angeles v. Pulice Construction, Inc.

I. INTRODUCTION

On September 20, 2024, the City of Los Angeles (“the City”) filed a complaint against Pulice Construction, Inc. (“Pulice”). Dkt. 1. On October 15, 2024, Pulice filed its answer to the City’s complaint, along with a counterclaim. Dkt. 12 (“CC”). Pulice’s counterclaim alleges a single claim for relief, breach of contract, and alleges six ways in which the City breached the contract: (a) the City failed to timely approve Pulice’s February 16, 2024 Claim (“February 2024 Claim’) and process it for payment; (b) the City delayed and disrupted the project in an unreasonable manner not within contemplation of the parties; (c) the City breached an implied or express warranty that the plans and specifications it issued were accurate and complete; (d) the City breached an implied or express warranty that it would not interfere with the performance of Pulice’s work; (e) the City breached an implied or express warranty that it would provide Pulice with access to the site in order to perform the project work; and (f) the City breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. CC § 53(a)-(f). On November 5, 2024, the City filed a partial motion to dismiss…