Los Angeles Construction, Real Estate, Entertainment, Employment Litigator David Krol

1888 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 | PHONE (310) 277-8011 | FAX (310) 277-1706 | EMAIL dk@vrmlaw.com | VCard

David is an associate with the firm who specializes in construction, real estate, entertainment, and employment litigation and arbitration.

With over 15 years of state and federal experience in both New York and California, including numerous appeals, David is well aware of the costs which can be associated with the litigation and arbitration process, and he therefore tries to find speedy and cost-effective ways to resolve legal disputes.

One of David’s clients is a start-up renewable energy company which was involved in a protracted dispute in Northern California with a power agency there. In 2009, David’s client had deposited $5 million of its own money into an escrow account before engaging in an experimental project to deepen an existing geothermal well in the Northern California area. Through no fault of its own, however, David’s client was unable to deepen the well, and it subsequently terminated the experimental project. Much to its surprise, however, the power agency refused to return one half of the escrowed funds, claiming that the well drilling efforts had damaged the well – even though the power agency had supervised the entire drilling effort, and had never claimed that the well had been “damaged” until after the drilling efforts ceased.

After informal resolution efforts failed, and recognizing that time was of the essence, David filed an arbitration demand against the power agency at the end of 2010, seeking the return of the escrow proceeds. The power agency responded by filing a counterclaim in the arbitration, seeking in excess of $7 million dollars for, among other things, the alleged costs to drill a replacement well, which the power agency claimed was necessary because David’s client had been “negligent” and “incompetent” in its drilling efforts. After consulting with his client, David insisted on an expedited but workable arbitration schedule in this complex dispute — and by the end of June, 2011, the arbitration was over and David’s client was completely vindicated: in a comprehensive, written award, the arbitrator determined, among other things, that David’s client had done nothing wrong at all, and that the power agency was not entitled to a replacement well. The arbitrator awarded AltaRock almost all of the money in escrow, as well as interest and arbitration costs, which the power agency agreed to release from escrow.

Nevertheless, the power agency would not relent, insisting on prosecuting a separate lawsuit which it had filed while the arbitration was pending in an unsuccessful attempt to delay that arbitration. In that lawsuit, the power agency claimed that certain issues had not been resolved in the arbitration. David successfully relied on the arbitration award as a complete defense to that lawsuit.