Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10271987 - 1.43 _ 1 ®43 HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA TO: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DATE: October 9, 1987 FROM: cc: Perfecto Villarreal , Executive Director SUBJECT: AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES THE OSBORN COMPANY, INC. v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE proposed agreement for Legal Services With Respect to Litigation in Connection with Low Income Housing Project between Lempres & Wulfsberg and the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa and AUTHORIZE execution of said agreement by the Chair of the Board of Commissioners, as approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. II. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds for payment of both the necessary legal fees to Lempres & Wulfsberg and any settlement/judgement on this lawsuit are available in the Development Account for CA011015, Elder Winds, Antioch. III. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND: In accordance with HUD regulations outlined in the HUD Litigation Handbook 1530.1 Rev. 4, the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa requested HUD authorization to hire the law firm of Lempres and Wulfsberg as co-counsel to defend the Housing Authority in a construction claim litigation filed by the Osborne Company. The Osborne Company filed a lawsuit against the Housing Authority concerning a construction claim involving the Elder Winds Housing Development, CA011015, located in Antioch. This litigation was filed against the Housing Authority in April , 1983. The case was dormant for nearly four years. Now, with a trial date rapidly approaching, both parties will have to undertake substantial discovery in a very short period of time. The Osborne Company was the general contractor who constructed the Elder Winds Housing Development. The contractor has alleged that the Housing Authority breached its contract with him and owes him money because it rejected his claims for extra compensation and did not pay him the full amount due under the contract. He has asked the court to award him damages in the sum of $322,918 plus interest on the sum CONTtNJED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RECOMMENDA ON OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) ACTION OF BOARD ON U79 7 ITJ 1APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED _ OTHER VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS X..- UNANIMOUS (ABSENT �— ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS A TRUE AND AYES: NOES: CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON THE DATE SHOWN. CC: County Aeri_nistrato_r ATTESTED OCT 2 7 198/7 . Count.". (' ) n q-e . . � Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the HousitYg Authori-ty Board of Commissioners M382/7-63 BY DEPUTY Board of Commissioners . October 9, 1987 Page -2- of $299,948.74 at the rate of of 12% from and after December' 27, 1982. Plaintiff's claim for extra compensation involves every aspect of construction over a two year period, including painting, drywall , and 4,444 days of claimed delay costs relating to 55 different aspects of the project. Each of these claims will have to be evaluated and defended. On August 26, 1987, the Presiding Judge of the Contra Costa Superior Court set the case for jury trial on March 21, 1988 with a Bar Bench conference scheduled for December 14, 1987. There is no .possibility that the trial date will be extended beyond March 21, 1988 as' the five-year statutory deadline for: bringing a case to trial expires on April 23, 1988. As it is going to take considerable time and resources to prepare the case for trial in the time available, County Counsel has indicated that the remaining time could probably be most effectively spent with a firm that specializes -in construction litigation. In order to assist the Housing Authority in locating- adequate representation, County Counsel approached three law firms about handling the case. Two responses were received. Lempres & Wulfsberg have represented several other housing authorities in the past and are currently working on a case with County Counsel in which they have exhibited considerable knowledge and efficiency, it has been recommended that the firm of Lempres & Wulfsberg be associated as co-counsel in this matter. IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Should the Board of Commissioners elect to not approve .the proposed agreement with Lempres & Wulfsberg and authorize its execution by- the Chair of the Board, the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa could very well find itself unprepared for both the December 14, 1987 Bench Bar conference and the March 21, 1988 jury trial date on this case.