The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued its annual report concerning bid protests for fiscal year 2008. According to the report, there were 1652 protests filed in 2008, which was an increase of 17% from 2007. It appears that protesting is effective. According to the report, protesters were “effective” (meaning a protester received “some form of relief from the agency”) in 42% of the cases.
The Arizona Department of Transportation has issued a warning that “materially unbalanced” bids may be rejected. Pursuant to Section 102.10 of the Department’s 2008 Standard Specifications, it may reject “irregular proposals.” Irregular bids include those that are “mathematically unbalanced” or “materially unbalanced.” A Materially Unbalanced Bid means ” A bid that generates a reasonable doubt that award to the bidder submitting a mathematically unbalanced bid will result in the lowest ultimate cost to the Department.” A Mathematically Unbalanced Bid means “A bid containing lump sum or unit bid prices that do not reflect reasonably anticipated actual costs plus a reasonable proportionate share of the bidder’s anticipated profit, overhead costs, and other indirect costs.” Unbalanced bids are detrimental to the Department and may be rejected.
The Maricopa County, Arizona Association of Governments (MAG) has issued its member’s proposed project list and funding amounts to participate in the Federal economic stimulus bill. MAG has identified a total of 725 potential projects totaling almost $7 billion. Click here for the 52 page listing of proposed projects and amounts.
In this case, the United States District Court found in favor of Berk Law Group, P.C.’s client that his employer breached its retirement plan contract by refusing to pay him benefits. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
In its Memorandum Decision issued September 17, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the United States District Court, Arizona, award of employment benefits to the employee represented by Berk Law Group, P.C. The case involved whether the employee qualified for benefits under the applicable plans. After applying ordinary principles of contract interpretation, the District Court and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the firm’s client was entitled to benefits.
In this case, Berk Law Group, P.C. represented the sellers of three “four-plex” apartment buildings. The buyers, a married couple from California, signed three separate contracts to buy the properties. When the buyers could not close escrow by the initial close of escrow deadline, the parties agreed to extend the deadline and the buyers agreed to deposit additional earnest money to be paid to the sellers as liquidated damages if the buyers did not close escrow by the new deadline. [Read more…]
In this case, Berk & Moskowitz, P.C. began representing the tenant in a lease dispute case after the trial court ruled against the tenant and found that the tenant did not have the right to cancel an office lease. The firm filed an appeal on behalf of the tenant. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court and found that, given the clear language of the lease, that the tenant did have the right to terminate the lease. Berk & Moskowitz, P.C. recovered the tenant’s security deposit, costs, attorneys’ fees and interest.
United States District Court Judge John W. Sedwick found in favor of the firm’s client against Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company for failing to honor an assignment of insurance proceeds. The firm represented an insurance adjuster who had received a partial assignment of proceeds from his client, the insured. The insurance company had refused to honor the assignment.
In this case, the firm’s client purchased a home in North Scottsdale. Unbeknownst to her, the home had been used by the sellers to breed and kennel large numbers of dogs over several years. Upon moving into the home, the buyer’s daughter and grandson had severe allergic reactions. They subsequently discovered that the home was used to breed dogs, but that fact was not disclosed before the sale.
Berk Law Group, P.C. filed a lawsuit in Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court against the sellers and their agent, Century 21. After trial, Judge Peter Reinstein found in favor of the buyer and assessed 95% of the fault to Century 21 for not disclosing the history of the home. The Judge awarded the seller full diminution in value caused by the prior use.
John Impellizzeri (the firm’s client) was the Plaintiff and Kenneth Sloniger was the Defendant in a lawsuit brought by Impellizzeri for Sloniger’s misrepresentations and errors in selling Impellizzeri certain life insurance. Sloniger’s insurance company defended him in the claims, but reserved rights to deny coverage. Because of the reservation of rights, Sloniger was partially released from his duty to cooperate with the insurer and entered a stipulated judgment in favor of Impellizzeri. [Read more…]