Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Date: 05-10-2022
Case Style:
Case Number: 5:18-CV-00175-HE
Judge: Joe Heaton
Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma County)
Plaintiff's Attorney: Chris Scaperlandam, Mike McClintock, Cole McLanahan, Emalie L. Rott, Nicholas Coffey
Defendant's Attorney: Christ Skelton, Evan Gatewood, Paula Williams and Robert Magrini
Description: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma commercial litigation lawyers represented Plaintiff, which sued Defendant on a breach of contract theory.
Crossland was hired by WinCo, a grocery chain, to serve as the general
contractor for the on-site work and construction of a new grocery store located at
353 N.W. 39th Street in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (the “Property”). WinCo and
Crossland entered into two written contracts (the “Agreements”) that provided the
terms under which Crossland agreed to perform its services.
Disputes arose between the parties concerning the work performed by
Crossland. WinCo alleged various defects and flaws, including that Crossland
improperly cured concrete; improperly constructed the Property’s storm refuge;
ignored directives of the architect of record; delivered a store with miscellaneous
defects; and failed to timely complete the store by the date specified in the
Agreements. Because of these claimed contractual violations, WinCo withheld a
significant sum of money—$850,450.15—from Crossland that was otherwise
undisputedly due under the Agreements.
On February 23, 2018, WinCo filed a complaint against Crossland alleging
breach of contract, and seeking a declaratory judgment that payment was properly
withheld from Crossland as a result of Crossland’s breaches. WinCo sought
damages, liquidated damages, the declaratory judgment, and attorney’s fees and
costs. WinCo amended its original complaint on August 6, 2018, asserting the
same causes of action with certain additional factual allegations.1
Crossland filed a counterclaim alleging breach of contract , unjust
enrichment, and foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien. As relevant here, Crossland
asserted that it timely and fully completed its contractual obligations, and that
WinCo failed and refused to pay the money it owed for Crossland’s “labor,
services and materials.” Aplt.’s App., Vol. I, at 33 (Crossland’s Countercl.
Against Winco, filed Aug. 3, 2018).
Outcome: A jury trial began before the district court on December 5, 2019. WinCo
argued that it was entitled to damages totaling $1,232,891.31 and sought a verdict in the net amount of $382,441.16—its total claimed damages, minus the
$850,450.15 it had retained. On the other hand, Crossland requested an award of
$630,952.15. Crossland had reduced the amount it was seeking from $961,156.04
(at the commencement of litigation) to $850,450.15 (at the beginning of trial) and subsequently to $630,952.12 (at the end of trial).
See: Tenth Circuit Opinion
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: