Christopher R. Sillari, Attorney

Christopher R. Sillari practices in the areas of business and commercial litigation, construction law, real estate, intellectual property, and appeals. Mr. Sillari’s practice has included various litigation matters from complaint filing through post-judgment appeal, involving general/subcontractor disputes, contract defaults, surety bond claims, contract interpretation, lien and stop notice law, construction delays, and certified pass-through claims. He represents construction companies in a wide array of matters involving both public and private projects. He also represents clients in real estate and business disputes, including litigation arising from the misappropriation of trade secrets, trademark violations, and unfair business practices. Mr. Sillari has participated in successful appeals with the California Courts of Appeal and the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals.

Mr. Sillari is admitted to practice before all California state courts, the United States District Courts for the Southern and Central Districts of California, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. He is currently a member of the San Diego County Bar Association. Mr. Sillari received his juris doctor from the University of San Diego School of Law, from which he graduated cum laude and was made a member of the Order of the Coif. While in law school, Mr. Sillari was a member of the San Diego Law Review. Mr. Sillari received his Bachelor of Science in Public Administration and Political Science from James Madison University.

Bar Admissions

  • California (state courts)
  • U.S. District Courts of California (Central and Southern)
  • U.S. Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit)

Education

  • J.D., Cum Laude, Law Review, Order of the Coif – University of San Diego
  • B.S., Public Administration and Political Science – James Madison University

Areas of Practice

Representative Experience

Architectural Aluminum Window Systems, Inc. v. Dick Pacific Construction Co., Ltd. Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals No. 57172; United States District Court, District of Hawaii Civil No. 07-00603 DAE LEK

2011: The firm’s client was a window subcontractor on a federal project at Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. As one of the first federal projects to be bid in the aftermath of September 11, 2001, disputes arose over who was responsible for the enhanced blast requirements. Upon completion of its work, the firm’s client pursued change order and contract balance claims against the general contractor and the Army. After reserving its client’s Miller Act claim, the firm pursued a certified pass-through claim to the Army. Approximately fifty percent of the certified claim was paid after the parties engaged in informal discussions. The remainder of the certified claim was denied and the firm then appealed the contracting officer’s decision to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. Under ASBCA guidelines, the parties engaged in mediation and the firm’s client reached a negotiated settlement with the Army on the appealed claims. The firm’s client subsequently reached a negotiated settlement with the general contractor on the contract balance.

DC Painting, Inc. v. Michael S. Summers San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2007-00074199-CL-BC-CTL; Court of Appeal of the State of California, 4th Dist. Case No. D055330

2011: The firm’s client was a painting contractor that was awarded a contract to repaint a commercial building. Upon completion of the work, the owner refused to pay the firm’s client based on a number of alleged defects in performance. The firm proceeded to trial and successfully obtained a verdict in favor of its client for the full value of its client’s services, as well as a substantial attorneys’ fee award. The owner appealed the attorneys’ fee award and the firm successfully briefed and argued the appeal, which resulted in the upholding of the trial court’s ruling and the subsequent granting of additional attorneys’ fees related to the appeal.

Dhando Investments, Inc. v. Staley, Inc. Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. KC058493

2010: The firm's client was an Arkansas corporation that was sued in Los Angeles for various business torts that allegedly occurred in Arkansas. The firm successfully obtained a dismissal of the lawsuit by establishing that its client was not subject to California's jurisdiction because of its limited contacts to California and the foreign nature of the plaintiff's claims. The lawsuit was dismissed at little cost and inconvenience to the firm's client. The litigation has not been pursued by the plaintiff in a different jurisdiction.

The Weitz Company I, Inc. v. Brethren Hillcrest Homes Arbitration Proceeding Case No. 1240019438

2010: The firm's client was the general contractor charged with expanding and renovating a large retirement community. The project was delayed for more than one year. The parties disputed liability for the delay. The owner sought over $1.5 million in liquidated damages from the general contractor. A five day arbitration resulted in the firm successfully defending the owner's delay claims and the litigation resulted in a net recovery for the firm's client.