CGA - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc. E X C E P T 1 O N A L S 0 L U T 1 O N 5 Litigation Statement Customer satisfaction is CGA's primary objective for every project undertaken by the firm. As such, CGA endeavors to complete each project on time and within budget. CGA is proud to assert that CGA has not failed to provide products, perform services, or furnished goods for which we have been contracted. Furthermore, CGA has no judgments or claims pending or outstanding. In the last five (5) years CGA has been involved in the following litigation: James A. Cummings, Inc. v. Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc., Case No: 06- 019973(18) in the 17th Judicial Court, in and for Broward County. This case which was filed in 2006 was related to the Palm Beach County Airport Parking Structure. The case was settled in August 2007. 2. Yvette Lorenzo, personal representative of the estate and survivors of Orestes Lorenzo v. Florida Department of Transportation, City of Pembroke Pines, William J. Russo, Natasha Russo, and Calvin, Giordano & Associates, Inc., Case No: 0601924(12) in the 17th Judicial Court, in and for Broward County. CGA was a co- defendant in a wrongful death action brought by the deceased's relatives. This case was filed on or about June 30, 2006, and was settled to the satisfaction of both parties in September 2008. 3. Vue Condominium Association, Inc. vs. Vue Fort Lauderdale, L.L.C., ET AL, Case No. CACE09012422 .Suit was filed March 3, 2009. This is a typical condominium construction defect suit involving the developer, contractor, numerous subcontractors and all the design team. The condominium association voluntarily dismissed its claim against Calvin, Giordano February 2011. 4. Walnut Creek Community Development District vs. Standard Pacific of South Florida, GP, Inc., Et Al, Case No. CACE10019353. Suit was filed May 4, 2010. The case concerns the failure of an HDPE drainage system and is in the early stages of discovery. The other parties include the developer, the pipe manufacturer and the contractor which is defunct but which may have insurance coverage. Our understanding is that the problems are primarily the result of defective manufacture of the HDPE pipe although design and construction deficiencies also are alleged. RFQ #11- 11 -01, Traffic Engineering Services Page 1 1 3