Construction Litigation

• Ms. Rossi obtained a $1.225 Million settlement in favor of her client, a land-clearing contractor.On behalf of her client, Ms. Rossi initiated two lawsuits in the Commonwealth against two Massachusetts towns, asserting claims for breach of contract, quantum meruit and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The two lawsuits later were consolidated in the Hampden Superior Court in Springfield, Massachusetts.
  Following a devastating ice storm in December 2008 that raged through the Commonwealth, Ms. Rossi’s client was retained by the towns to perform disaster relief services, including the removal and disposal of all debris from town roads as a result of the storm. While written contracts were in place, and while Ms. Rossi’s client fully performed the services for the towns, her client was not paid at all by one town for its work, and was not fully paid by another town for its work.For over two years, Ms. Rossi aggressively pursued her client’s claims against the towns, including extensive written discovery, multiple depositions and multiple motions. The towns vigorously defended the lawsuits, including asserting twelve counterclaims against her client. Among other things, the towns argued that the contracts between Ms. Rossi’s client and the towns were invalid due to alleged noncompliance with various Massachusetts competitive bidding statutes and Massachusetts case law that favor municipalities and towns, and that have, historically, enabled towns to avoid contractual responsibilities. In response, Ms. Rossi argued inapplicability of the statutes and case law, exceptions to the statutes and case law even if they applied, and of course, argued full performance. Despite the towns’ efforts, Ms. Rossi never wavered in her pursuit of justice for her client.The claims were resolved at mediation for payment to Ms. Rossi’s client in the total amount of $1.225 Million.
• Represented a general contractor in Connecticut in two consolidated construction litigation lawsuits in the Superior Court of New London, Connecticut involving a multi-million dollar commercial construction project. The general contractor, as Plaintiff, alleged claims of: breach of contract, quantum merit, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with business relations, violations of the Connecticut Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), and foreclosure of the general contractor’s Mechanics Lien against the company that owns the property and buildings where the construction project took place, and who entered into the Contractor Agreement with Ms. Rossi’s client. Claims for tortious interference with business relations also were asserted against four officers/employees of the Defendant company.
  The Defendant company asserted Counterclaims against Ms. Rossi’s client for: breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, conversion, civil theft and violations of CUTPA.
  While the lawsuits were filed in 2009, Ms. Rossi’s appearance in the matters on behalf of the Plaintiff, general contractor was in 2013, after the lawsuits sat stagnant on the docket for approximately two years. After her appearance in the lawsuits, Ms. Rossi aggressively pursued her client’s claims against the Defendant company and the four individual Defendants, and aggressively defended the claims against her client. After obtaining a Scheduling Order to secure a trial date for these matters, among other things, voluminous discovery was obtained, multiple depositions were conducted, and multiple court conferences and hearings were held. On the same day that trial initially was scheduled, Ms. Rossi negotiated a resolution of the lawsuits that was favorable to her client, the general contractor. The settlement sum is confidential.
• Ms. Rossi represented the general contractor who was seeking its retainage from the owner of a large-scale construction project, who had failed and/or refused to release the retainage upon completion of the project. Although the owner sought to have the breach of contract claim stricken on the basis that the contractor had not substantially completed the project by the date stated in the “time is of the essence” clause in the construction contract, the Court denied the owner’s motion on this issue, and agreed with Ms. Rossi that sufficient facts were pled by the general contractor to sustain its breach of contract claim. The parties proceeded through relatively voluminous discovery and multiple lengthy depositions. The business day after the discovery deadline expired, Ms. Rossi’s client’s claim was successfully resolved. The settlement sum is confidential.
• A subcontractor initiated a lawsuit against Ms. Rossi’s client, the general contractor on a multi-million dollar public construction project, seeking its retainage. The subcontractor further sought pre-judgment remedy. Ms. Rossi vigorously defended her client, asserting, among other things: that the lawsuit was premature in that the construction project was ongoing and no conditions precedent had yet been satisfied so as to cause any retainage to become due or owing to the subcontractor or anyone; that the subcontractor was ill-equipped and did not have sufficient manpower to perform the work, causing delays and excess costs which exceeded the retainage amount claimed by the subcontractor; and that there was no need for a prejudgment remedy because the payment bond provided sufficient insurance. In addition, Ms. Rossi argued that because the prejudgment remedy was in the form a garnishment sought against a town (the owner of the project) that was holding the retainage monies, no prejudgment remedy could be had under the theory of sovereign immunity. Following the filing of a motion to strike, the Court agreed with Ms. Rossi that the subcontractor’s claims of unjust enrichment and violation of CUTPA (unfair and deceptive acts and practices) would be stricken. Less than two weeks thereafter, the lawsuit was successfully resolved in its entirety. The settlement sum is confidential.
• On behalf of homeowners, successfully negotiated settlement of claims before litigation was filed against builder of newly constructed luxury home, involving defects in the hardwood flooring throughout the first and second floors of the residence. The claims asserted included defective material, defective workmanship, improper supervision, breach of contract, breach of warranties and violation of the Connecticut New Home Warranty Act.
• Following nearly four days of arbitration hearings on breach of contract and defective construction counterclaim, Ms. Rossi obtained six-figure monetary Award on behalf of clients, homeowners against luxury residential home builder in Connecticut. Among other items, the Award included damages for improper installation of shingles on a low pitch roof, improper installation of underlayment or sub-flooring under limestone tile, and improper construction of an attic dormer, main roof framing and exterior wall sheathing. In addition, because of the high amount of the Award, the home builder’s claim for payment due under the contract with the homeowners was negated, the lien filed by the builder on the property was released, and the builder was required to pay monetary damages to the homeowners.
• Successfully challenged State of Connecticut, Department of Public Health’s investigation of an individual with 36 years of construction and septic system experience, which resulted in closure of the investigation because there was an insufficient basis for the State to proceed further.