The court docket between GPatti Enterprises and Jamestown Brewing Company has gotten a bit heavier.

Attorneys for the entities will be in court again in mid-June for a conference on the two remaining claims from the original lawsuit filed by Jamestown Brewing Company. As The Post-Journal reported recently, three of the claims were dismissed by Walker, with the remaining claims focusing on a breach of contract between the parties and a claim centered around an accounting of Downtown Revitalization Initiative funds.

On Monday, GPatti filed its responses to the remaining claims by Jamestown Brewing Company while also asserting several counterclaims against the brewers. The filing asserts 17 defenses against the claims the Jamestown Brewing Company has made against GPatti, including failing to state a cause of action, documentary evidence, Jamestown Brewing Company failing to mitigate its alleged damages, that Jamestown Brewing Company has materially breached the contract by not meeting its obligations, has not acted in good faith in accordance with the lease terms, is not entitled to an accounting of DRI money because it has an adequate remedy through the law, that GPatti has performed all of its obligations under the lease, that JBC would be unjustly enriched if it recovered the demands requested in the lawsuit and that the damages are speculative or result from Jamestown Brewing’s own conduct.

GPatti is asking state Supreme Court in Erie County to dismiss the remaining two claims against it while filing four counter-claims.

BREACH OF CONTRACT COUNTERCLAIM

GPatti is asking the court for compensatory damages as a result of alleged breaches of the lease agreement by Jamestown Brewing Company, along with costs, disbursements, interest and fees.

GPatti’s lawyers also claim Jamestown Brewing Company has breached the lease agreement by not performing work the brewers were supposed to perform, including control wiring, plumbing, structural and other electrical work; hasn’t installed kitchen equipment or purchased restaurant, catering, banquet, bar furniture, booths, seating or stools.

“JBC’s conduct frustrated the purpose of the lease and interfered with GPatti’s performance of obligations under the lease,” GPatti’s attorneys wrote.

The counterclaims also allege Jamestown Brewing Company hasn’t paid interest on bridge construction loans as stipulated in the lease. The bridge loans were issued by banks to pay for work that would later be reimbursed by state grants because the state grants aren’t disbursed until the project is complete. GPatti’s attorneys allege providing amounts of the interest payments in September and February, but the payments have not been made.

“To date, JBC has not cured its Event of Default for failure to remit TI Interest payments to GPatti,” the counterclaim states.

GPatti’s lawyers also allege the contract was breached when Jamestown Brewing Company made the lease between the parties public despite a section in the lease setting out an alternate method to file the substance of the lease without making the document public.

The lease also calls for financial information to be provided on request. The counterclaim states GPatti has requested financial information several times, including Feb. 7, 2019, but has not received any of that information.

“JBC’s refusal to provide the requested financials is a breach of the lease, and under the circumstances, demonstrates its bad faith attempt to hide its current financial condition and future financial viability as a tenant from GPatti,” the counterclaim states.

Jamestown Brewing Company’s initial lawsuit against GPatti included claims that GPatti officials had failed to pay contractors in a timely fashion, resulting in delays to the project and that the projeect had been delayed because GPatti’s architects had allegedly not included fire dampers in the design drawings for the HVAC system, an omission that disrupted remaining construction when it was rectified.

GPatti now alleges that Jamestown Brewing Company has violated the lease agreement by issuing change orders without authority, adding cost to the project, while interfering with GPatti’s onsite relationships and co-working agreements with subcontractors and trades. Specifically, GPatti’s lawyers allege there were days Jamestown Brewing Company workers weren’t at the job site despite contractual obligations to provide certain materials and to cooperate with GPatti’s contractors and subcontractors. Work was also allegedly disrupted when there was no one from Jamestown Brewing Company at the site to move equipment or install equipment so that GPatti contractors could perform construction tasks.

“GPatti’s project manager tried to maintain a professional relationship through the project, but JBC became unprofessionally hostile and demanding to GPatti, the general contractor and subcontractors,” the counterclaim alleges. “JBC left behind the sound system, data cabling, TV cabling, door security, stage lighting and stage light bracketing, delaying the construction and impeding GPatti’s ability to perform its obligations under the lease. JBC breached its duty to engage in good faith and fair dealing when it chose not to show up at the job site for consecutive days without justification or explanations.”

OTHER CLAIMS

GPatti’s lawyers have filed a specific performance counterclaim asking the court to demand that Jamestown Brewing Company cure its alleged events of default and perform its obligations under the lease by paying the bridge loan interest payments, producing the requested financial documentation and performing the rest of the tenant’s work required by the lease.

The developer’s attorneys also claim Jamestown Brewing Company’s behavior has resulted in tortious interferernce with business relations by acting unprofessionally by not showing up to the Third Street site when needed, failing to move equipment to allow other contractors and trades to perform their work, abandoning its own equipment at the site, issuing change orders without advance notice, justification or authority to do so; and making false and derogatory statements about GPatti to third parties both on- and off-site, verbally and in writing.

“JBC intentional interference caused construction delays, payment delays, change orders and mechanics’ liens as well as the costs associated with lifting those liens (including reasonable attorneys’ fees), all of which damaged GPatti in an amount to be determined at trial.”