Mr. Case is the managing partner of CASE, IBRAHIM & CLAUSS, LLP. Mr. Case represents all sectors of the Construction Industry including owners and developers, public entities, general contractors, engineering contractors, subcontractors, construction managers, material suppliers, and construction sureties and insurers. Mr. Case also has significant corporate transactions and corporate acquisition experience.

Education: Mr. Case holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree from U.C.L.A. (1980) and a Juris Doctorate Degree from Pepperdine University (1984).

Practice: Mr. Case is admitted to practice in all State and Federal Courts in the State of California as well as the United States Court of Appeals-Ninth Circuit; the United States Court of Federal Claims; and, the United States Supreme Court.

Member: Mr. Case is a member of the American Bar Association-Forum on Construction Industry;  State Bar Section of Real Property and Sub-Section of Construction Law;  He is also a member of various industry organizations including the Legal Advisory Committee to the Associated General Contractors of California (AGC-California); CAL-SMACNA, the, American Subcontractor Association (ASA), Southern California Contractors Association (SCCA) and other industry support groups.

Speaker/Author/Publishing: Mr. Case has lectured and written on various construction related subjects including:

  • “Construction Contracting for Public Entities in California” (Pasadena, 1999 and Glendale, 2001)
  • “Indoor Air Quality Issues” (“IAQ”) for Lorman Business Center (Orange County, 1997)
  • “Construction Contract Workshops” for CalTrans/ Triaxial Management Services (Los Angeles, Orange and San Diego, 1987-1997)
  • “Changes, Delays and Impacts” for CAL-SMACNA (La Costa, 1996)
  • “Comprehensive Legal Guide For Contractors” for CAL-SMACNA (1st Edition, 1996)
  • “California Construction Law – What To Do When” for the National Business Institute (Anaheim, 1992)
  • “Construction Managers-Rights, Liabilities and Positions” for the Legal Advisory Committee to the AGC-California (Carmel, 1991)
  • “Claims, Bonding and Construction Contracts” for the Los Angeles Department of Airports (Los Angeles, 1990)

Appellate Publications:
Wright v. United States Postal Service (1994) 29 Fed 3d. 1426 – Subcontractor’s right to an “equitable lien” against, and payment by, federal governmental agency where agency is aware of claim and prime contractor and surety are insolvent or fail to pay.
Amelco Elec. v. City of Thousand Oaks, 27 Cal. 4th 228(2002) 27 Cal. 4th 228 (Filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of contractor associations.) The city of Thousand Oaks solicited bids for electrical work to be performed in the construction of a civic arts plaza. During the two-year construction process, the city furnished 1,018 sketches changing original contract drawings, 248 affected the electrical cost. The lighting company requested 221 change orders. A civil suit followed. The lighting company submitted a $ 1.7 million total cost claim for costs allegedly resulting from the change orders. The jury found the contract was breached and abandoned, and awarded total cost damages. The court of appeal affirmed. The issue submitted for the Supreme Court review was whether the abandonment theory of liability applied against a public agency. The Supreme Court concluded the theory of abandonment did not apply against a public entity, and that the lighting company failed to adduce sufficient evidence to warrant instructing the jury on total cost damages for breach of contract.
LEWIS JORGE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT, INC. v. POMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al. (2004) 34 Cal. 4th 960: Suit for wrongful termination of public works construction contract. Jury award for contract balance, lost profits and interest totaling $4.7M. Damage award affirmed on appeal. The California Supreme Court granted review and overturned the lost profits component of the damages.
BFGC ARCHITECTS PLANNERS, INC., v. FORCUM/MACKEY CONSTRUCTION, INC. et al. (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4th 848. Cross-complainant, an architecture firm, appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County (California) in favor of cross-defendant general contractors after their demurrers were sustained without leave to amend. The superior court held that the architecture firm’s claims for implied indemnity required a predicate tort.

Email: Brian S. Case, Esq.

LinkedIn: Brian S. Case, Esq.