Andrea L. Petray, Attorney

Andrea L. Petray practices in the areas of construction law, business litigation, commercial litigation, and real estate. Her practice includes representing clients in public and private works disputes, subcontractor default issues, commercial sales and other business litigation, and land use and planning/development issues, including through trial and arbitration.

Ms. Petray is admitted to practice before all California state courts and the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. She received her juris doctor from the University of California Los Angeles School of Law. Ms. Petray received her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from the University of California at Davis.

Bar Admissions

  • California (state courts)
  • U.S. District Court of California (Southern)

Education

  • J.D. – University of California Los Angeles School of Law
  • B.A., Political Science – University of California at Davis

Areas of Practice

Representative Experience

RePipe - California, Inc. v. W I T Pipeline Rehab et al. San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2008-00090723-CU-BC-CTL

2009: The firm initiated litigation on behalf of a pipeline rehabilitation subcontractor on a City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department sewer rehabilitation project. The firm sued the general contractor, its payment bond surety, and the project owner to recover the principal amount due of $270,000.00 via claims for breach of contract, recovery on payment bond, and recovery on public works stop notice. The general contractor alleged it was entitled to an offset from subcontractor due to delays on the project and liquidated damages assessed by the owner. One month before trial, the firm recovered $336,000.00 for its client via settlement, more than the principal claim.

Urata & Sons Cement, Inc. v. Lodi Unified School District et al. San Joaquin Superior Court Case No. CV033417

2009: A trade contractor on a public works new high school construction project filed suit against the firm’s construction manager client for breach of contract as an alleged third party beneficiary and negligence seeking in excess of $3.8 million dollars for alleged contract balance and delay and disruption damages. Following nearly two years of litigation and after the court granted the firm’s summary judgment and summary adjudication motions, the District and trade contractor settled with no contribution by the firm’s client.

GBC Concrete and Masonry, Inc. v. Altadena Lincoln Crossing, LLC et al. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. GC037960

2008: The firm’s trade contractor client sued the project owner and lender to recover $311,000.00 for improvements to the project. The firm’s client’s early litigation offer to accept $336,000.00 was rebuked by the defendants. After obtaining a pre-judgment writ of attachment and summary adjudication of its breach of contract and lien foreclosure causes of action, and attaching rents due the project owner, the case settled with the firm’s client being paid $475,000.00.

Blackinton Airport Property Owners Association v. Dino DeLuca et al. San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIN056722

2008: The firm represented a homeowners association that sued to foreclose on a lien to collect delinquent assessments in the amount of $154,000.00. Defendant asserted a cross-claim for declaratory relief seeking to invalidate the homeowners association’s allocation of airport landing rights. After the second day of the client’s case-in-chief at trial, and testimony by sitting Justice MacDonald (who drafted the operating documents for the association), defendant agreed to pay the full amount of the lien plus $150,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs; and judgment validating the allocation of landing rights.

Time And Alarm Systems v. Edge Development, Inc. et al. San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. SCVSS 143134

2007: Second-tier subcontractor initiated litigation to collect the contract balance on a $42 million dollar new high school project which was completed over one year behind schedule with delay and disruption claims by more than a half dozen subcontractors totaling over $8 million dollars. After serving as project counsel since 2004, the firm represented the general contractor in responding to the subcontractor claims and pursuing the owner for payment of the legitimate amount of the same, as well as the additional costs of the general contractor. Through a series of liquidation agreements, mediations, and negotiations with the owner and its counsel, the firm’s client avoided liability to the subcontractor claimants beyond the amount paid by the owner, and recovered additional compensation for its work, with the District paying the firm's client over $2.6 million dollars to resolve the consolidated lawsuits.