Louis J. Blum, Partner at Marks, Finch, Thornton & Baird

Louis J. Blum, Partner

Louis J. Blum is a partner in the firm. Mr. Blum practices in the areas of construction law, civil litigation, and business litigation. His experience includes numerous multi-week trials. His construction law practice includes litigation of a myriad of disputes from supplier-subcontractor to prime contractor-owner concerning both private and public works construction projects, including claims relating to extra work, delay, inefficiency, and defective work. Mr. Blum also assists clients with bid protests, surety and insurrance issues, as well as lien, stop notice, and bond claims. He has also represented clients in litigation involving patent, copyright, trademark, and service mark enforcement; insurance coverage; unfair business practices and unfair competition; license agreements; business torts including fraud, breach of contract, negligence, and interference with contract; and commercial code issues, including security interests, sales of goods, and commercial paper.

Mr. Blum is admitted to practice before all California state courts and the Central and Southern United States District Courts of California. He is a member of the State Bar of California and the San Diego County Bar Association. He received his juris doctor from the University of San Diego School of Law, where he graduated cum laude and was made a member of the Order of the Coif. Mr. Blum was also a member of the San Diego Law Review and his comment “Mixed Signals: Comparative Analysis in Constitutional Adjudication” was published in Volume 39, in the Winter 2002 edition of the San Diego Law Review. He received CALI (AmJur) awards for the highest achievement in Products Liability and Pre-Trial Practice. Mr. Blum received his Bachelor of Arts in Economics from Washington University, St. Louis.

Representative Experience

Foundation Fence, Inc. v. Kiewit Pacific Co. United States District Court, Southern District Case No. 09-CV-2062 DMS (JMA)

2011: The firm represented the plaintiff in a dispute regarding payment for extra work performed as a subcontractor on three U.S.-Mexico border fence projects for Kiewit, the general contractor. During the course of litigation, Kiewit moved for summary judgment on the grounds Foundation Fence’s claims were subject to a mandatory pass-through and liquidation provision in the subcontract. To defeat the motion, the firm successfully argued the pass-through and liquidation provision was an unenforceable waiver of Miller Act payment bond rights. The parties reached a negotiated settlement after the firm defeated the motion.

The City of Indian Wells, and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Indian Wells v. Hemet Manufacturing Co., Inc., dba Genesis Construction, et al. Orange County Superior Court Case No. 06CC08240

2009: The firm initiated a multi-party construction defect action on behalf of the City of Indian Wells as owner of a multi-unit affordable senior housing complex. The firm sued the prime grading contractor, prime building contractor, their performance bond sureties, the architect, soils engineer, and others for damages for construction defects relating to soils settlement. The defendants each alleged they did not cause the damage, the deeper soils issues were the cause of settlement, and that the City’s damages were not as extensive as claimed. The Firm defeated a motion for summary judgment by the prime grading contractor’s performance bond surety contending the damages and claim occurred in excess of one year from completion. After more than a year of litigation, the firm recovered $9,129,725.00 for its client via settlement.

Global Conveyance, Inc. et al. v. Roel Construction Co., Inc. et al. San Diego Superior Court Case No. GIC831566

2006: Eight day bench trial on complaint against client seeking $90 million, plus punitive damages, resulting in complete defense judgment in favor of firm's contractor client. Plaintiff’s last pre-trial offer was to accept payment of $15 million.

Roel Construction Co., Inc. v. Fladeboe Automotive Group, Inc. et al. Orange County Superior Court Case No. 04CC05399

2005: Three week jury trial regarding private work of improvement resulting in 12-0 verdict in favor of firm's contractor client on complaint, zero recovery on cross-complaint of property owner opponent, and declaration that termination was for convenience, not cause.

Nick Pecoraro Painting & Decorating, Inc. v. PCL Construction Services, Inc. et al. Los Angeles Superior Court, West District, Case No. SC074509

2003: Seven day bench trial regarding private work of improvement resulting in judgment in favor of firm's subcontractor client on complaint, and zero recovery on cross-complaint by general contractor opponent.