Marks, Finch, Thornton & Baird, LLP (858) 737-3100
Jason R. Thornton, Partner
Jason R. Thornton is a partner in the firm. His practice includes representation of clients in complex construction litigation, bid protests, mechanic’s lien foreclosure litigation, construction activity related personal injury defense, and construction defect defense. Mr. Thornton’s litigation practice includes extensive experience in arbitrations, trials, civil writs, and appeals. He represented the appellants in the precedent-setting cases of San Diego Unified Port District v. Douglas E. Barnhart, Inc. (2002) 95 Cal.App.4th 1400 [in a construction case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held the firm's client could not be forced to pay for destructive testing requested by others]; and Wagner Construction Company v. Pacific Mechanical Corporation 41 Cal.4th 19 (2007) 41 Cal.4th 19 [California Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Thornton's position that arbitrator, not court, decides statute of limitations defense]. Mr. Thornton also provides strategy counseling and compliance advice on general business, construction, and labor and employment issues.
Mr. Thornton is admitted to practice before all California state courts and before the Central, Eastern, Southern, and Northern United States District Courts of California. He is a member of the State Bar of California and San Diego County Bar Association (Construction Law section). Mr. Thornton received his juris doctor from the University of San Diego where he graduated cum laude and was made a member of the Order of the Coif. He was also a member of the Appellate Moot Court Board and received American Jurisprudence awards for outstanding achievement in Real Property and Evidence. Mr. Thornton received his Bachelor of Science in Economics from the University of California, San Diego. He was named a “California Super Lawyer” in 2007, 2008, and 2009, a Top 10 San Diego Construction Attorney in 2007, and a Top 20 San Diego Construction Attorney in 2008.
Representative Experience
Valdivia v. CertainTeed Corp. San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIC885749
2011: The firm defended a client in this multimillion dollar product defect lawsuit involving the installation of replacement windows in stucco construction homes. In connection with this action, the firm filed a cross-action against the manufacturer for indemnity based on the client’s reliance on the manufacturer’s installation instructions for the installation of replacement windows sold by it. In the face of joint motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff and class representative settled in exchange for a nominal amount from the manufacturer. As a result, the firm’s client obtained a complete release and dismissal of a potentially devastating lawsuit against it with no contribution from the client.
Engineered Structures of San Diego, Inc., dba Cairo Construction Company v. CH2M Hill Constructors, Inc. et al. San Diego Superior Court Case No. 37-2008-00057648-CU-8C-NC
2009: The firm represented a subcontractor in litigation arising from the construction of a large wastewater treatment plant in North San Diego County. The firm initiated a lawsuit on behalf of the subcontractor against the design-build-operate contractor who had not paid the subcontractor in full for contract work performed. The subcontractor also sought damages for disruption to its work, resulting in labor inefficiency, and for change order work for which it had not been paid. The design-build-operate contractor disputed the subcontractor's claim and asserted a cross-complaint in the lawsuit against the subcontractor seeking affirmative relief. After a two-week jury trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the firm's client in the amount of $443,884.26. The firm's client then asserted post-verdict claims for interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, and was paid $750,000.00.
C & L Coatings, Inc. v. Apex Development, Inc. et al. Court of Appeal of the State of California, 2nd Dist. Case No. B215701
2009: The firm represented a contractor against a defaulting subcontractor for breach of contract and indemnity relating to its work on a public work of improvement. During the project the contractor obtained the consent of the public agency to substitute its listed subcontractor with another subcontractor. At the end of the project the replacement subcontractor’s supplier sued the subcontractor and the contractor’s payment bond. In the action initiated by the firm against the subcontractor for breach of contract and express indemnity, the subcontractor moved for summary judgment arguing that its contract with the contractor was void because the public agency failed to give the original subcontractor notice of the substitution and an opportunity for a substitution hearing. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and the firm appealed the decision to the California Court of Appeal on petition for writ of mandate. The Court of Appeal agreed with the firm that the contract was valid because the failure to comply with the notice and hearing requirements of the Public Contract Code was not caused by the contractor who obtained public entity consent. Accordingly, it reversed the summary judgment order and allowed the contractor to proceed to trial on its breach of contract and express indemnity claims against the defaulting subcontractor.
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.
