SUMMARY OF WEIL & DRAGE FIRM PROSPECTUS
I. Firm BackgroundWeil & Drage is a law firm that specializes in complex construction and business litigation and negotiation. With offices throughout California, Nevada and Arizona, Weil & Drage has a substantial presence in the Western Region with extensive experience handling matters and litigation nationally and internationally. The firm is certified by the Women's Business Enterprise National Council as a Women's Business Enterprise (WBE), as well as a Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB). Weil & Drage is also certified by the Supplier Clearinghouse for the Utility Supplier Diversity Program of the California Public Utilities Commission.
II. Representative ProjectsThe lawyer members of the firm have extensive experience in the design and construction industries, from contract negotiation through project change order negotiation, claim mitigation, litigation, trial, and appellate work. The types of projects include airports, hospitals, hotels, casinos, highways, and other infrastructure projects, stadiums, justice projects, parking structures, performing arts centers, wastewater treatment facilities, power plants, fuel cell facilities, and retail and mixed-use, high rise and multi-family residential projects. Weil & Drage has represented clients in thousands of cases in California, Nevada, Arizona, as well as other jurisdictions including Colorado, Utah, Oregon, Idaho, Connecticut, and Saipan. Weil & Drage's client base includes architects, engineers (all disciplines), land surveyors, contractors, and construction managers.
III. Representative Clients – ConstructionThe firm's client base includes numerous architects, engineers, select general contractors and subcontractors, including framers, roofers (sloped, flat and mansard type construction), stucco subcontractors, drywallers, major plumbing subcontractors, HVAC subcontractors (build and design/build), as well as sheet metal subcontractors, graders (mass, rough and finish), landscapers, concrete (foundations and flatwork), sliding glass doors /window suppliers and installers, insulation subcontractors and fire resistive/fire stopping subcontractors, rebar fabricators, rebar installers, as well as construction managers.
The members of the firm have handled legal matters involving virtually every type of design and construction project and have also worked closely with professional liability and general liability carriers around the globe. Below are some examples of cases handled by Weil & Drage in major litigation.
IV. Representative CasesAirports
In City of Elko v. Canyon Construction (Arbitration), we represented a global engineering company against The City of Elko (the "City") related to the design and construction of the concrete apron at the regional airport in Elko, Nevada. The City claimed that the entire apron needed to be removed and replaced at a cost in excess of $10 million. The defense argued the existence of alkali silica reactivity and compliance with Federal Aviation Administration specifications. The matter was successfully arbitrated before three arbitrators, including a retired state Supreme Court judge. The panel of three arbitrators ruled that the City's damages were "grossly overstated and not supported by the evidence" and further held that the true amount of damages suffered by the City was collectively $650,000 as specifically argued by the defense, bringing the result well under the seven-figure demands prior to arbitration.
In Clark County v. Domingo Cambeiro, we represented the architect in a claim filed by Clark County concerning the design of a connection bridge between the B-Gate and C-Gate terminals at the McCarran International Airport. Clark County alleged that the architect's services were defective, resulting in the incursion of over $6 million in damages consisting primarily of delay and repairs to the roofing system. The claims were successfully resolved at mediation.
In In re: John Wayne Airport, we represented the rebar subcontractor. The matter involved claims arising out of the construction and design of the John Wayne Airport parking structure addition, Levels II and III, in Orange County, California. The claims alleged structure failure localized at the slab to corbel connections at the referenced ramps from the lowest level to the ramps leading to the third level due to allegedly improper placement of reinforcing steel. The matter settled favorably.
In PCL Construction v. Clark County, under a joint defense, we represented five design consultants under contract with the architect against $33 million in claims by the general contractor for alleged delays and cost overruns caused by design errors and omissions. The claims were successfully resolved at mediation with none of our clients contributing to the settlement.
In Sletten Construction (Sletten) v. Clark County, we represented the architect in defense of a $16 million delay claim advanced by the general contractor against the County in connection with Satellite Terminal D at McCarran International Airport. The matter settled early and favorably.
Catastrophic Personal Injury
In Afusia v. Phillips we represented a global engineering firm involving a traffic fatality and double catastrophic injury case in Las Vegas, Nevada. The owner sued for defective design of the intersection. We moved to dismiss developer's cross-claim based upon a defective Certificate of Merit. The Supreme Court held that any Complaint filed against a design professional which does not strictly comply with the Certificate of Merit statutes is void ab initio, as if it never existed.
In Epp, et al. v. CPH Monarch, et al., we represented an internationally-recognized designer of the water features at the five star St. Regis Monarch Beach Resort, in a lawsuit involving a resort guest being rendered a quadriplegic after diving into one of the resort pools. We extricated our client from the litigation before trial by successfully moving for summary judgment and obtained judgment in our client's favor.
In Henson v. Maggi, we obtained a defense verdict after three-week jury trial involving catastrophic auto-pedestrian accident.
In Hollingsworth v. Mandalay Resort Group, we represented a global architecture firm related to a complaint by plaintiff for injuries she allegedly suffered while she was a patron at the Verandah Restaurant in the Four Seasons Hotel ("Four Seasons") in Las Vegas, Nevada. Plaintiff claimed that while she was dining at the Verandah, she was struck in the head by a large piece of decorative glass and suffered permanent brain injuries. Plaintiff alleged damages in excess of $9 million against the architect claiming strict liability and negligence per se. All claims were successfully eliminated on summary judgment.
In Ryan Jones v. MGM Grand Hotel, we represented a global engineering firm in a $5 million dollar brain injury action wherein the Plaintiff claimed he was struck by a piece of millwork negligently installed in the Skylofts Suites at the MGM Hotel & Casino. The millwork contractor filed a third-party claim against the engineering firm claiming that the plans failed to specify attachments for the millwork piece causing it to be negligently installed and become dislodged. We secured summary judgment in the client's favor and also recovered a significant portion of our client's attorneys' fees and costs.
In Larkin v. California Hydronics, we represented an ENR Top 500 mechanical, electrical and plumbing engineering firm, as well as top architectural firm, against claims brought by the estate of decedent arising out of allegedly deficient mechanical room failures at the Venetian Hotel and Casino Resort in Las Vegas, Nevada. The claims involved catastrophic personal injuries and ultimately death, with the defenses focusing on causation and successful resolution based on same.
In Marsh v. Fremont Street Experience, we represented both the traffic engineer and landscape architect in a multimillion dollar personal injury action involving eight different claimants arising from a serious vehicle-pedestrian incident occurring at the Fremont Street Experience in Las Vegas, Nevada. All Plaintiffs incurred significant injuries, including severe brain injuries. The matter was successfully globally resolved.
In McKean, et al. v. Maricopa County, et al., we represented the architect for a large shopping center. The lawsuit was brought by the family of a driver who was killed in a traffic accident as she exited the shopping center. The matter was resolved at mediation, with a very nominal contribution from our client.
The case of Tanner, et al. v. Barclay Anthem L.P. et al., involved a lawsuit by a woman who was severely burned and disfigured when an explosion occurred in an outdoor fireplace at a restaurant and shopping center. We represented the mechanical and plumbing engineer who designed the natural gas delivery system to the outdoor fireplace. The plaintiff sought over $10 million in damages. The matter was resolved at mediation, with a very nominal contribution from our client.
In Bradley Thuringer v. Bernard Deutsch & Associates dba Deutsch Architecture Group, we represented the architect in a wrongful death action brought by the father of the deceased. Plaintiff alleged that the design and construction of an expansion joint at a Honeywell facility in Arizona created a dangerous condition. We filed a motion to dismiss and after meet and confer efforts with plaintiff we were able to obtain a dismissal with prejudice for our client.
In Tucker v. Amcord, Inc., we represented the architect who provided architectural services for the remodel of a medical center in Chino Valley, California. Plaintiff brought a wrongful death and survivorship action against the architect and others claiming exposure to asbestos while employed at the medical center. We filed a demurrer and secured a dismissal with prejudice for our client.
In John Bates & Associates v. David Volz Design, we successfully represented the architect through trial. The architect served as a consultant to the prime designer regarding a $20 million sports park in California. The architect successfully recovered fees and costs, and the matter settled favorably at the punitive phase of the trial.
In Leviton v. Fireman's Fund (U.S. District Court), we represented the structural engineer against claims brought by the owner of a distribution warehouse in Nevada. Leviton sued the surety, the general contractor, architect, and engineer in federal court. The owner initially sought $12 million in damages for a seven acre slab, which was curling. The owner alleged a combination of construction and design claims, including the engineer's failure to properly specify the mix design. After a two-month trial, we successfully limited the owner's damages to the defense cost of repair.
In The McIntosh Group, LLC v. Sunshine, Inc. dba Sunshine Flooring, et al., we represented the architect, which sued the owner of a two-story commercial retail/warehouse project for unpaid architectural fees, including a claim for foreclosure on a mechanic's lien. Defendant filed a counterclaim for alleged architectural errors and omissions. The arbitrator granted architect's motion for summary judgment on all causes of action and awarded the architect the entire outstanding principal balance and 100% of its attorneys' fees, costs and interest pursuant to Nevada's mechanic's lien statutes and an indemnity provision in the architectural agreement. The Clark County District Court affirmed the arbitrator's award in its entirety and ordered that the property be sold at a foreclosure sale to satisfy the judgment.
In Swinerton Builders v. SL West Hollywood, LLC, et al., we represented a vertical transportation consultant for a large shopping center project on a cross-action by the developer. We negotiated an early settlement for a nominal sum, but the developer refused to finalize the settlement. As the case continued for over a year, we brought a summary judgment motion on multiple issues, including lack of duty. The motion was granted, and we recovered costs for our client.
In TownCenter Plaza v. Core Engineering (Arbitration), we represented the civil engineer regarding a developer's claims of faulty civil design in connection with a 131-acre industrial park in Calexico, California. The developer originally sought $3 million in damages, but the civil engineer prevailed on summary judgment as to the negligence claim and reduced developer's damages to $1 million. We also brought a counter-claim for unpaid fees. We ultimately obtained a defense verdict for the civil engineer on the developer's affirmative claims and prevailed on the civil engineer's fee claim.
In Darling Ltd. v. M+W U.S., Inc., we represented a professional surveying firm who provided laser scanning, data registration, and professional 3D modeling services as part of an overall BIM (Building Information Modeling) project at a large semiconductor plant. The client's services essentially provided the owner with 3D drawings of existing space in the plant so that equipment could be designed and constructed off-site and then subsequently installed in the plant to fit within specific parameters. The client was not paid in full for its professional services on the project. Our office recorded a lien on behalf of the client and subsequently filed a claim against others to recover payment. One of the defendants filed a multi-million dollar counterclaim against our client in response. All claims resolved favorably at mediation, with the parties expressing an interest to work with each other again in the future.
In In re: DPR Construction, Inc., we represented the engineer in connection with alleged design errors associated with a Microsoft data center in Iowa. The matter resolved favorably before litigation.
Energy and Infrastructure Projects and Cases
Successfully represented EPC Contractor in defense of Delay and Performance Liquidated Damages claims, as well as pursuit of withheld retention, on gas-fired turbine power plant in CA.
Successfully represented global engineering firm in litigation involving water districts in CA, including but not limited to a project involving replacement of natural gas combustion engines with fuel cell power generation, and litigation involving the assessment of feasibility of a cogeneration project intended to produce electrical power from digester gas.
Successfully represented global engineering firm in management of claims resulting from Lake Mead Tunnel collapse and related claims in NV.
Representing EPC Contractor on significant Solar Power project in Nevada.
Representing global design team in litigation involving the Alaska Way Viaduct and Big Bertha tunnel boring machine wherein hundreds of millions of dollars in delay damages are being claimed by and between all parties to the project, among other claims, venued in Seattle, Washington.
Representing global engineering firm in litigation involving Transbay Transportation Center in San Francisco, CA, including but not limited to, the much-publicized sinking/tilting Millennium Tower litigation.
In MGM v. Marnell Corrao (Marnell), we represented a large entertainment engineering firm in defense of a $55 million lost profits claim by MGM against the contractor regarding a stage malfunction of the high tech three-dimensional stage constructed for the Cirque du Soleil show "KA" in the MGM Hotel. After extensive negotiations, we secured a voluntary dismissal of our client.
In In re: Fernley Canal Break, we represented a global engineering firm in defense of $100 million in claims by 1,500 litigants in class actions, filed in 12 separate state and federal court matters. Class plaintiffs asserted that our client and multiple other parties caused or contributed to flood damage associated with a breach of the Truckee Canal in Fernley, Nevada. We were able to settle favorably before trial. The matter proceeded to trial as against other parties with class plaintiffs obtaining a substantial verdict.
In CDG Architects v. Cannon/Parkin Inc., we represented a global architecture firm in a breach of contract action concerning fees owed for professional services provided in the design and construction of the New Psychiatric Hospital & Urgent Care Center in Pima County, Arizona. Following extensive discovery and pleading practice, the matter was successfully resolved.
In multiple The Regents of the University of California matters, we successfully represented a global engineering firm with mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire life safety scope in defense of claims on three separate health care facilities in California with construction values collectively nearly $1 billion and nearly $500 million in alleged damages for delays and cost overruns.
In Mandalay v. Rolf Jensen & Associates (RJA), we represented the ADA Consultant in the defense of a $30 million claim by MGM (successor to Mandalay) regarding alleged ADA issues for the Mandalay Bay, Four Seasons, THEhotel and all common areas. After the lower court denied summary judgment, we prevailed on a writ petition to the Nevada Supreme Court which reversed the lower court and held that all of Mandalay's claims for indemnity and contribution for ADA violations were barred under the doctrine of obstacle preemption. We also recovered our client's attorneys' fees and costs as the prevailing party.
In Mandalay v. Terracon, we represented a structural engineering firm and an architect firm in defense of a $60 million claim by MGM (successor to Mandalay). The matter was venued in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas, Nevada. During construction, the hotel settled 18 inches due to underlying soils liquefaction. MGM asserted damages for the cost of compaction grouting stabilization repairs and economic losses due to the late opening of the resort. After extensive litigation, we prevailed before the Nevada Supreme Court on a certified question regarding Nevada's extension of the economic loss doctrine to design professionals, with the claims against Weil & Drage's clients dismissed.
In The Montage at Deer Valley v. Beaudin Ganze Consulting Engineers (BGCE), we successfully represented architect in delay cost overrun and defect claims allegedly exceeding $40 million. The matter was successfully resolved.
In Paul Steelman, Ltd. v. HKS, Inc., we represented a global architecture firm in a business dispute with the design architect for the $700 million Foxwoods Casino on the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation Reservation in Mashantucket, Connecticut. The case was successfully tried to jury in U.S. District Court in Clark County, Nevada.
In Venetian Hotel & Casino v. Wimberly, Allison, Tong & Goo (WATG), we represented an international architectural firm in the defense of a $30 million claim by the Venetian alleging errors and omissions against the design team in connection with the design of the original hotel and Canal Shoppes mall. We also advanced the architect's fee claim. We prevailed on two separate MSJ's, the first defeating Venetian's tort claims (under the economic loss doctrine) and the second enforcing the architect's limitation of liability clause in the owner/architect agreement. Thereafter, the case settled for a nominal sum. The Venetian also ultimately paid towards the architect's fee claim.
Commonwealth of the Northern Marina Islands v. Leo A. Daly Company. This matter involved a lawsuit filed by the CNMI government against the design team alleging pervasive architectural, structural, civil and MEP design deficiencies with the Commonwealth Dialysis Center ("CDC") located on the island of Saipan. The CNMI government claimed that these deficiencies caused excessive construction and production costs, significant changes to the design and construction of the CDC and the attached Commonwealth Health Clinic, and resulted in significant delays to the opening of the CDC (encompassing several years). Due to delay and cost overruns, the CNMI government claimed damages in excess of $15 million. Following extensive investigation of the issues, the parties favorably resolved the dispute in mediation.
In AF Construction (AF) v. Clark County, we represented 21 design team members (covered by a $10 million professional liability project policy) involved in the design of the Regional Justice Center in Clark County, Nevada. The contractor asserted a $92 million delay claim against the County, and the County asserted a counterclaim of $58 million for construction defects and delays. On behalf of the design team, we negotiated a joint defense agreement with the County and successfully negotiated resolution on behalf of the entire design team before verdict.
In In re: Federal Office Building, San Francisco, we represented the design architect in a Claim for Equitable Adjustment brought by the contractor against the General Services Administration. The contractor alleged some $66 million in damages associated with delays and unpaid change orders. The project, consisting of over 600,000 square feet of space with innovative structural and energy-conscious design, brought an added level of complexity to negotiations. The design team negotiated a joint defense agreement and collaborated with the GSA in its defense of the claims. The matter resolved at mediation without contribution of the design team.
In Boar Inc. v. County of Nye, 499 Fed. Appx. 713 (9th Circuit Court of Appeals), we represented an engineering firm that contracted with the County of Nye ("Nye") to serve as the county engineer in an action filed by property owners claiming violation of constitutional rights regarding certain statutory requirements and fees for the development of a commercial property allegedly not being enforced against other commercial developers. We secured summary judgment in favor of the engineer at the district court and then successfully defended plaintiff's appeal of said decision at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which ultimately upheld summary judgment.
In DWA v. City of North Las Vegas, we represented the architect for the Nellis Air Force Base Fitness Center project. DWA sued the City of North Las Vegas ("CNLV"), the party responsible for the construction of the project, for unpaid additional Construction Administration services for the project which was completed over a year after the initial completion date. CNVL filed a counterclaim for breach of contract and fraud against DWA. Following a five-day arbitration, we prevailed on DWA's affirmative claim against CNLV and completely defensed CNLV's counterclaims. In addition to the award for DWA's additional Construction Administration fees, the Arbitrator awarded DWA its costs, arbitration expenses and interest.
In Arrington v. GVRE, LLC dba Keller Williams Realty, we represented the buyer's agent, broker, and real estate firm concerning a failed real estate transaction involving a $14 million dollar custom residence in Lake Las Vegas, Nevada. The owner alleged collusion and fraud. Utilizing a legal argument based on NRS 645.251, we successfully eliminated plaintiff's $1 million fraud claim via motion for summary judgment.
In Del Mar Land Partners LLC v. Stanley Consultants, Inc., we represented an internationally-recognized civil engineer in a lawsuit by the owner of approximately 1,300 acres of dry-lot subdivisions. The owner claimed over $7 million in damages stemming from the civil engineer's alleged failure to obtain the proper approvals required for sales of the lots. The owner also asserted a fraud claim against the civil engineer. The owner initially filed the lawsuit in California. We were able to get the lawsuit dismissed in California through a motion to dismiss. The owner eventually re-filed the action in Arizona. We filed a counterclaim against the owner on behalf of the civil engineer for unpaid fees. We successfully obtained summary judgment before trial in the client's favor on both the owner's $7 million damages and fraud claim, as well as in the client's favor on its counterclaim against the owner. The client was awarded 100% of its unpaid professional fees.
In Georgiou Studio v. Boulevard Invest (U.S. District Court), we represented a property manager regarding a lease of commercial property at the Desert Passage/Miracle Mile shopping center in Las Vegas, Nevada. All claims were successfully eliminated on summary judgment.
In Morris v. Somers, we represented two real estate agents and their brokerage firm and other employees in connection with allegations of failure to disclose defects in the transaction concerning a single-family home in Pahrump, Nevada. After a four-week jury trial, we secure a defense verdict for four of our five clients and successfully negotiated a modest settlement for the fifth client.
In Cecilia Stern v. Keller Williams Realty the Marketplace, we represented the listing agent, broker, and real estate firm concerning an allegedly failed residential real estate transaction in Las Vegas, Nevada. Issue included representations regarding square footage and permits. Following extensive discovery and a four-day jury trial, we secured a unanimous defense verdict and prevailed on our counter-claim against the owner. Through subsequent pleading work, we were also able to secure recovery of the majority of attorney's fees and costs incurred in the litigation and a defense against plaintiff's appeal.
Residential/Mixed Use/High Rise Condominium/Apartment Projects
In Acqua Vista Homeowners Association v. K. Hovnanian at Acqua Vista, LLC, we represented the architect involving claims brought by the homeowner association against the developer. The project was originally designed and developed as a 382-unit, two-tower, high-rise apartment complex. A new developer purchased the property and then converted the project from apartments to condominiums. Plaintiff alleged construction, design, and manufacturing defects asserting damages in excess of $50 million. The developer and general contractor defendants cross-complained against other parties including the architect. After filing dispositive motions against each developer and general contractor defendant, the matter settled favorably as to the architect.
In In re: CityCenter, we represented the architect in defense of $500 million in claims related to the design and construction of the $8 billion project commonly known as CityCenter in Las Vegas, Nevada, the largest privately funded project in the country. We successfully limited and ultimately resolved claims against architect.
In Bo Du v. Mohammadi, we represented a civil engineer against allegations relating to the failure of a retaining wall ultimately resulting in the City of Diamond Bar red tagging a single family home due to structural concerns. We secured summary judgment in our client's favor.
In LPC v. R.D. Olson Construction, we represented the architect involving claims by the owner of an apartment complex against the general contractor and architect seeking $58.5 million for construction and design defects and delay damages. The contractor also cross-complained against the owner for $6 million for unpaid change orders and delay damages. The owner sought damages from the general contractor and architect. The case resolved favorably at mediation.
In One Turnberry Place Condominium Association v. Malco, Inc., we successfully defended a subcontractor in complex litigation involving this high-end, multi-million dollar, high-rise condominium project in Las Vegas, Nevada. The claims involved extensive construction defect allegations, with our client's scope including construction of drywall, EIFS, interior framing, caulking, fireproofing, stucco, and interior and exterior painting.
In Palermo v. Kimball Hill Homes of Nevada, we represented the developer involving a $12 million class action suit seeking recovery for construction defects alleged by 134 single family homeowners. At the beginning of the case, class plaintiffs successfully certified their claims as class action. The matter settled globally for approximately $4 million, with our client paying only a small fraction of the settlement.
In Panorama Towers HOA v. Panorama Towers, LLC, we represented the entire design team under two separate project policies for two separate towers. That case involved claims of $50 million against the owner, developer and design team. The case settled favorably before the design team entered an appearance.
In Pasadena Collection West Property Owner's Association v. Cordova Hudson, Ltd., et al., we represented the architect on a mid-rise, mixed use project. The HOA claimed several million dollars in alleged design and construction defects. Just prior to mediation, we filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings based on new case law finding that contractually-imposed time limitations for filing of a claim were enforceable. The matter was resolved at mediation, without any contribution from our client.
In Quinterro (In re: Kitec Litigation), we represented the plumbing contractor in a class action suit involving 40,000 residences in Southern Nevada wherein defective Kitec pipe fittings were installed during construction. This case was the largest class action suit ever filed in Nevada. Our client installed Kitec fittings in 4500 homes. Under Nevada's Chapter 40 statute, class plaintiffs named the manufacturer, multiple distributors, 29 developers, and multiple plumbers. As such, this case was both a products case and a statutory construction defect case including claims for strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, and failure to warn. The manufacturer and distributors settled collectively for $90 million, which comprised about 20% of class plaintiffs' total claimed damages of $400-500 million. Our client settled favorably at mediation.
In Regional Steel Corporation v. JSM Construction, LLC, we represented the largest steel fabricator and installer in the Western Region in a $39 million lawsuit involving the design and construction of a condominium/mixed use complex in Los Angeles, California. The claims involved everything from liens to construction and design defects to performance bond issues, culminating in intense litigation and ultimately a successful settlement.
In Vegas VP v. WPH Architecture, Inc., we represented the architect in connection with $1.5 million in claims advanced by the owner for cost overruns incurred during the construction of a high-rise condominium project known as the Metropolis. We tried the matter to verdict before a panel of three arbitrators (one of whom is a retired Nevada Supreme Court Justice). We secured a full defense verdict.
In Webcor v. Marina Pointe, we represented the architect involving claims initially brought by the general contractor against the owner for delays and cost overruns of $16 million related to outstanding Change Orders and unpaid retention in connection with a 138-unit high-rise condominium project in Marina Del Rey, California. The owner crosscomplained against the general contractor for construction defects and delay damages in excess of $9 million. The owner also cross-complained against other entities, including the architect. The matter settled favorably.
In In re: Wilshire Margot, we successfully represented one of the country's largest reinforcing steel contractors and fabricators in a $147 million construction defect action pertaining to a seven-story luxury apartment building located in West Los Angeles. We won summary judgment on our declaratory relief action whereby the court enforced the consequential damages waiver. Thus, the court dismissed over $80 million of plaintiff's claims associated with loss of rents and profits. Thereafter, the case settled favorably with our clients contributing a nominal sum.
In Century Steel, Inc. v. Asphalt Products Corporation, dba APCO, we represented both the structural engineer of record and the subcontractor responsible for installing the glass walkway, glass curtain wall, handrails, and other glass features for the $35 million Skywalk over the West Rim of the Grand Canyon. We secured a voluntary dismissal of the engineer and settled favorably for the subcontractor.
In Halcomb v. RBF Consulting, Inc., et al., multiple lawsuits were filed related to an automobile-motorcycle accident, resulting in catastrophic injuries to the motorcyclist. We represented one of the civil engineers who provided traffic engineering services. We succeeded on a summary judgment motion based on plaintiffs' failure to produce an expert report specifically alleging fault by our client.
In Kiewit Pacific Company v. SSL, LLC, et al., the firm represents a global A/E firm regarding multiple claims and alleged damages surrounding the I-405 Sepulveda Pass Widening project in Los Angeles, California, including but not limited to alleged delay and cost overrun claims, deficient Mechanically Stabilized Earth wall systems, and personal injury claims.
In Ramos, et al. v. State of Arizona, et al., and Hodesh, et al. v. State of Arizona, et al., two related cases, we represented the traffic engineer in lawsuits involving serious personal injuries, including the death of a fetus, resulting from two traffic accidents at neighboring intersections. Despite a very aggressive plaintiffs' counsel, we successfully negotiated a settlement at mediation, with a very minimal contribution from our client.
In Romero v. CALTROP Corporation, we represented an engineer against claims of negligence and violation of certain government code sections. Plaintiff alleged that our client failed to maintain construction job site safety resulting in personal injuries to the plaintiff. After we filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, plaintiff agreed to dismiss our client.
In MPTN v. Paul Steelman, we successfully represented architect in multiple actions involving hotel/casino in Connecticut venued in Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation. Ultimately, we successfully tried action in Federal Court.
Wastewater Treatment Facilities
In City of North Las Vegas v. Greeley and Hansen, we represented the prime design engineer regarding a contractor's claim of design errors and omissions and change orders in connection with a $250 million waste water treatment plant. The project was a design-build involving global engineering firms. We were able to successfully resolve this matter during early mediation.
In Sletten Construction (Sletten) v. Southern Nevada Water Authority, we represented the joint venture partnership of two ENR Top 10 engineering firms in defense of a $16 million delay claim advanced by the contractor against the Water Authority and one of the Top 5 global construction management firms. The matter settled favorably.
In Taisei v. Nikkiso Pumps America, we represented one of the world's largest manufacturers and installers of metering pumps, accessories, and fluid handling systems. The case involved an $18 million defect and delay claim regarding the design and construction of a wastewater treatment facility brought by the general contractor against, among others, its design/build subcontractor, Weil & Drage's client.
The above-referenced list is by no means all inclusive, but it provides a broad range of the types of construction cases and clients handled by the firm. Upon request, we will be happy to provide more examples of past and present cases.