Gray•Duffy, LLP Obtains Favorable Settlement for Plumber in Complex Landlord/Tenant and Construction Defect Matter
June 2014
Overview
Michelle MacDonald of Gray•Duffy’s Encino office represented a plumber in a matter involving a large apartment building in which both landlords and the tenants made significant plumbing claims. The settlement was made directly with the plaintiffs for a small fraction of the amount demanded by the owner/developer.Discussion
Villegas v Chateau Hollywood et al The plaintiffs were the tenants of a five-story, 103-unit apartment complex in Hollywood originally owned by defendant Chateau Hollywood which contracted Gray•Duffy’s client GT Rooter for a complete repipe as part of a renovation of the 75-year-old building. During the course of the renovation, GT Rooter also made emergency spot fixes for leaks, stoppages and overflows of the original plumbing which had not yet been replaced. Approximately 25 percent of the original project was completed when the owner declared bankruptcy. The work was then completed by a subsequent purchaser utilizing different subcontractors including a new plumbing subcontractor. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a landlord tenant action against both former and current owners alleging breach of statutory duties, breach of implied warranties of habitability and breach of quiet enjoyment of the premises. Chateau Hollywood filed a cross complaint against several subcontractors including GT Rooter alleging express and implied indemnity and negligence. During the pendency of the action, Gray•Duffy argued that there could be no indemnity by a subcontractor for breach of non-delegable duties of a landlord and attempted to resolve the matter expeditiously for a nominal amount on that basis. When the landlord refused to accept the proposal, the proposal was made directly to the plaintiffs, and the case was resolved for far less money than the cost of a summary judgment motion. An order of the court was obtained which determined that the settlement was in good faith, and barred the cross complaint by the landlord.Please Note: This article is necessarily general in nature and is not a substitute for legal advice with respect to any particular case. Readers should consult with an attorney before taking any action affecting their interests.