Dillingham-Ray Wilson v. City of Los Angeles

Good Law
106 Cal. Rptr. 3d 691·182 Cal. App. 4th 1396·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 350
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 18, 2010B192900California4,702 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ashmann-Gerst, J.

The City of Los Angeles (City) obtained millions of dollars worth of construction work that it does not want to pay for. It believes it is absolved of any obligation to pay by Public Contract Code section 7107 and Amelco Electric v. City of Thousand Oaks (2002) 27 Cal.4th 228 [ 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 900 , 38 P.3d 1120 ] (Amelco) on the theory that they dictate a method of proving contract damages, a method that the contractor, Dillingham-Ray Wilson (DRW), says is impossible under the circumstances. Below, DRW asserted its own claims and pass-through claims of subcontractors against the City for breach of a public works contract and obtained an award in excess of $36 million for delays, unpaid contract retention, prompt pay penalties, prejudgment interest and attorney fees. But prior to that, the trial court granted in limine motions and excluded $25 million of DRW’s claims on the theory that it could not document its actual costs as required by contract, it was not permitted to prove damages with engineering estimates, and it was not entitled to prove damages using a modified total cost theory. In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude that the trial court erred…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.