$________ Construction defect - Alleged failure by builder to include soundproofing between floors and walls in condominium complex. p 7 3

Los Angeles County, California

The plaintiffs are the owners of converted condominium units.

They brought suit against the developer alleging construction defects, most notably the omission of soundproofing in the floors and walls of the units. The defendant did not deny liability.

An 80-year-old toy warehouse in the artist district of Los Angeles was converted to 20 high-end residential condominiums/lofts which were initially sold at prices between $________ and $________. The plaintiffs brought claims for construction defects, including the omission of certain soundproofing components which exposed homeowners to extreme sound transmission through the party walls and floor/ceiling assemblies, including everyday sounds of conversations, TVs, bathroom activities, as well as a whole host of everyday noises.

The plaintiffs contended that the city-approved plans called for sound battening insulation as well as resilient channels on the party walls and 1/4-inch cork under the hardwood floors. The plaintiffs further contended that those soundproofing components were completely omitted when the former warehouse was converted into residential units. The homeowners alleged that the developer did not follow the building plans and intentionally omitted the soundproofing between floors and wall.

The defendant did not disagree that the city-approved sound components were missing; however, argued that the plaintiffs’ method of repair was excessive.

Initially the developer made no offer of settlement to resolve this matter. At a settlement conference prior to trial the plaintiffs demanded the sum of $________ and the developer was only willing to offer the sum of $________. The trial in this matter proceeded for nine days. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ case the matter was settled for the sum of $________.