Dillingham-Ray Wilson v. City of Los Angeles
California Court of Appeal
[CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*]
1Opinion of the Court
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 1 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…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. G. W. Thomas Drayage & Rigging Co.California Supreme Court · 1968
- California Lettuce Growers, Inc. v. Union Sugar Co.California Supreme Court · 1955
- Aas v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- City of Hope National Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc.California Supreme Court · 2008
- Servidone Construction Corporation, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. The United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Kinda v. CarpenterCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- Penzel Constr. Co. v. Jackson R-2 Sch. Dist., Warner-Nease-Bost Architects & Henthorn, Sandmeyer & Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2017
- JMR Construction Corp. v. Environmental Assessment & Remediation Management, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2015
- City of Livermore v. BacaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- Marina Pacifica Homeowners Ass'n v. Southern California Financial Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2014
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.