Gray•Duffy obtained a complete dismissal of the claims against its client brought by a real estate company.
Farigol Bineshpour, et al v. Essex Property
This claim arose out of and related to a pending lawsuit in Alameda County, California. This was a consolidated matter involving numerous plaintiffs (42) who are residents of a 225-unit apartment complex located in Emeryville, California, which is owned and operated by Essex. The plaintiffs alleged that their quiet use and enjoyment of the leased premises were subject to interference due to construction which allegedly took place from approximately August 2014 to May 2016. Essex named all subcontractors who performed construction repairs at the property during this time. The litigation was ongoing for three years with no end in sight.
Gray•Duffy’s client was a crane operator who had been brought in the case in May 2019, two years after the action had been filed. After reviewing thousands of pages of documents, and prior discovery and participating in several depositions, the firm took an aggressive posture that the claims against its client could not be substantiated and demanded a dismissal.
Specifically, it was asserted that based on the evidence produced to date, the indemnity language relied upon the property did not support the indemnity for the claims alleged by the plaintiffs. Further, even if true, the analysis revealed that there were 692 days of construction, with only nine days involving the firm’s client. Finally, even though the work could be documented, there was no evidence produced to date that any of the plaintiff’s alleged damages were directly caused by the scope of the work to date.
Essex, the property owner, agreed to dismiss their cross-complaint against the client for a waiver of costs
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.