A licensed electrical contracting firm filed a civil claim against an international apparel retailer for quantum meruit, account stated, breach of contract, action of mechanic’s lien and action on release bond, unjust enrichment, and prompt payment. In addition to naming the Retailer as a defendant, Plaintiff named the Retailer’s general contractor for the project, along with the property owner and the insurer that provided the construction bond.
Plaintiff’s civil action arose out of construction of tenant improvements at a retail space owned by the property owner and leased to the Retailer at a high-end shopping center.
In bringing this action against all of these name defendants, Plaintiff alleged in their complaint that they furnished labor, material, services and equipment under the subcontract and in accordance with the Scope of Work to the general contractor, who agreed to pay Plaintiff the reasonable value for their labor, materials, service and equipment. The principal amount due to Plaintiff was several hundreds of thousands of dollars, plus interest at the legal rate of ten percent (10%) per annum. This was the first cause of action sought by Plaintiff against the general contractor under the legal theory of quantum meruit.
Plaintiffs, a lawyer and his law firm, filed an action for the enforcement of an attorney fee award against a cinema company. The amount in dispute was $188,442 plus statutory interest at the rate of 10%. This was the balance due in the initial award of $2.2 million dollars in attorney fees to Plaintiffs in the initial settlement of the class action suit back in 2008. This settlement agreement was revisited in 2015 but only with respect to the issue of outstanding fees. In the 2015 agreement, as an accommodation, the plaintiffs reduced their fee demand but also included a pledge agreement requiring Defendant to pledge their stock ownership as security for payment on this compromised amount. Defendant only made 23 payments before it breached the agreement when no payment was made. Defendant claimed they were suffering economic setbacks and simply stopped making any further payments. In their answer and amended answers, Defendant denied that any amount was due and that the plaintiffs failed to state a cause of action for which relief could be granted.