A Court-Side Seat: An End-of-Year Environmental Update
January 09, 2023 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelAs 2022 draws to a close, here is a brief description of recent environmental and regulatory law rulings, as well as new federal rulemaking proceedings.
United States Tax Court
Green Valley Investors, LLC et al, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
On November 9, 2022, the Tax Court agreed with the taxpayers that the IRS’s use of administrative Notice 2017-10 to impose substantial tax liabilities violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The notice was the agency’s response to a provision in the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 which increased the penalties for engaging in a reportable transaction understatement. Here, at issue was the value of charitable deductions generated by the creation of environmental easements made in connection with land transactions. These claimed deductions amounted to more than $60 million. The petitioners argued that IRS Notice 2017-10, which authorized such large penalties, was in fact a “legislative rule” whose promulgation should have complied with the notice and comment requirements of the APA. The agency contended that the Congress, by implication, absolved the IRS from the notice and comment requirements. The court agreed with the petitioners and set aside Notice 2017-10 and the imposition of penalties under Section 6662A of the Jobs Creation Act. On December 8, 2022, the IRS published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would correct the APA deficiencies noted by the courts. (See 87 FR 75185.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
KB Homes Sues Condo Buyers over Alleged Cybersquatting and Hacking
October 22, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFWillowbrook, a condominium complex in Lakewood Ranch, Florida has had problems with water intrusion. Now the builder is having problems with some of the residents. National home builder KB Homes is alleging that a pair of Willowbrook home owners who created a web site about their problems have violated federal cybersquatting laws, as the web site names they have registered are close to that KB Homes. The suit alleges that Andrew Smith and Daniel Koehler hope to either get KB Homes to purchase the web site or to buy back their homes.
The lawsuit also alleges that three other individuals, William Crismon, Patrick McGettigan, and Armando Oyola-Delgado, conspired to intercept e-mails between KB Home and Dueall Construction. KB Homes claims that the three gained access to a WiFi hotspot used by Dueall.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Seller Faces Federal Charges for Lying on Real Estate Disclosure Forms
October 02, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFHomeowners Glenn and Kathryn Jasen allegedly mislead buyers Kelly Magbee and family when they checked “no” on questions regarding sinkhole activity on real estate disclosure forms, according to On Your Side News. Furthermore, “Citizens Property Insurance Co. failed to file a sinkhole certification on a Spring Hill home in 2009. The company slipped the form into county records five years later- in Sept. 2014 – after questions from 8 On Your Side.”
If the insurance company had filed the sinkhole documentation, then the Magbees would have been told about the sinkhole prior to the purchase of the home. According to On Your Side News, Magbee and family moved out of the home “after a crack opened in the living room.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Relief Bill's Highway Funds Could Help Construction Projects
January 04, 2021 —
Tom Ichniowski - Engineering News-RecordAmong the many provisions in the coronavirus relief bill, one key item is $10 billion to help state highway agencies make up for losses in state fuel taxes and other revenue due to the pandemic-caused falloff in traffic this year. Construction is one of a list of several eligible uses for the money—one of only a few construction funding provisions in the relief measure.
Reprinted courtesy of
Tom Ichniowski, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Ichniowski may be contacted at ichniowskit@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
School District Settles Construction Lawsuit
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Franklin County, Pennsylvania Public Opinion reports that an area school is coming to an end with its construction lawsuit. The school district was sued by its contractors for a combined $1.4 million, which the school district withheld when the project was not completed on schedule. Lobar Inc. claimed that the district additionally owed interest and should pay attorney fees. The school claimed that only $1.15 million was due under the contract. Under the settlement, they will be paying $1.136 million.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Picketing Threats
July 09, 2019 —
Jerry Morales - Snell & Wilmer Under ConstructionLetters from unions to owners, general contractors and other contractors informing them of the union’s dispute with one or more of the subcontractors, working at a common construction project site (or common situs), and of the union’s plans to engage in “public informational campaigns” at the site, in furtherance of the dispute, may constitute unlawful threats of secondary boycott.
Unions often send letters to various employers that share a common construction project site, informing them that the union has a dispute with one or more of the subcontractors working or scheduled to work at the same site. In labor law, the employers that do not have a dispute with the union are referred to as “neutral employers,” in contrast with the employers with which the union has the dispute, referred to as “primary employers.”
In the letters, the unions typically describe the reason for the labor dispute (e.g., alleged failure to pay “area standards”), request that the neutrals use their “managerial discretion” not to allow the primary employers to perform work at the project site until the dispute is resolved, and inform that the union will engage in public information campaigns against the primary employer at the common situs. The “public information campaign” is described in the union’s letter as including banner displays, distribution of handbills, picketing and other demonstration activity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jerry Morales, Snell & WilmerMr. Morales may be contacted at
jmorales@swlaw.com
Beware: Hyper-Technical Labor Code Violations May Expose Employers to Significant Claims for Penalties under the Labor Code California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA)
May 10, 2017 —
Angela Reston-Nunez – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPMost employers know that companywide policies or practices that do not strictly comply with applicable state or federal employment laws can expose employers to class action lawsuits by large numbers of employees seeking recovery of massive sums in damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. Unfortunately, traditional class action lawsuits are not the only representative actions employers should be concerned with. Recent litigation trends have shown that California’s lesser known Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”) can be equally, if not more harmful to employers than class actions due to steep penalties for minor violations.
WHAT IS PAGA?
Under PAGA, “aggrieved employees” can sue employers for alleged Labor Code violations. Like class actions, a PAGA plaintiff sues on a representative basis on behalf of themselves and other workers. However, unlike class action plaintiffs, PAGA plaintiffs do not seek damages; rather, they seek civil and statutory penalties formerly recoverable solely by state agencies in enforcement actions.
The distinction between recovery of damages in class actions and recovery of penalties in PAGA actions reflects the often-insidious nature of PAGA claims. While workers have long alleged “derivative” PAGA claims for penalties in connection with more substantive underlying Labor Code violations (meal or rest break violations, for example), we have seen a recent spike in PAGA suits alleging hyper-technical Labor Code violations with no underlying substantive violation, and where the “aggrieved employees” have suffered no actual harm.
WHAT'S AT STAKE?
Equally troubling for employers is the method by which significant penalties are aggregated. With a few significant exceptions, penalties generally range from $50 to $250 per violation. At first blush, this may not seem like much, however total penalties rise rapidly when considering that calculations are made on a per-employee and a per-pay period basis.
AN EXAMPLE ON HOW PAGA WORKS
Consider the following example based on one recent case:
Issue: An employee brought a PAGA-only lawsuit on behalf of himself and 400 other “aggrieved employees” against his employer for alleged Labor Code violations.
Claim: The employee claimed the employer’s 30-year practice of paying employees 9 days after the close of the applicable payroll period violated Labor Code Section 204(d), which requires payment to be made within 7 days of the close of the payroll period. The employee claimed that, under PAGA, the employer was liable for a minimum penalty of $100 per employee, per pay period, going back at least one year (the statutory limitations period for PAGA claims).
Exposure: With 400 employees, 24 pay periods per year, and $100 per violation, the plaintiff sought a minimum of $960,000 in penalties (not including substantial attorneys’ fees, costs and interest also available under PAGA), despite offering no evidence of harm suffered by the employees or prior notice of the issue.
OTHER IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to a draconian penalties scheme, there are a myriad of additional aggravating factors for employers involved in PAGA litigation, such as:
- PAGA plaintiffs are not required to meet the rigorous class certification standards required of class action plaintiffs, meaning plaintiffs’ attorneys may be more likely to bring meritless “strike suits” aimed at obtaining quick settlements based on significant alleged penalties exposure.
- 75% of PAGA penalties recovered by way of settlement or judgment are directed to the state of California, while the "aggrieved employees” only keep 25%, reinforcing the notion that PAGA claims are frequently attorneys’-fee-driven, rather than for protecting employees.
STEPS FOR EMPLOYERS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES
Fortunately, there are a number of measures employers can take prior to and during wage and hour litigation which can dramatically reduce, or even eliminate, exposure to substantial penalties and damages. This includes:
- Regular reviews. Prior to litigation, we recommend regular detailed reviews of company policies and practices in order to identify areas of possible concern and ensure compliance with California’s ever-changing labor laws.
- Take action. On receipt of a new PAGA claim, taking immediate action to remedy an alleged violation within the Labor Code’s 33-day “safe harbor” time-period may help limit an employer’s exposure, and could bar a plaintiff from filing suit at all.
- Be aggressive. Once a PAGA or class action claim is in litigation, a proactive, aggressive approach to claim evaluation, investigation and litigation is critical.
For these reasons and more, it’s in an employers’ best interest to monitor these issues closely and seek input when appropriate.
Angela Reston-Nunez is a labor and employment attorney in Newmeyer & Dillion’s Walnut Creek office. For questions regarding PAGA, class action or individual wage and hour issues, or other employment law matters, please feel free to contact Angela Reston-Nunez at (925) 988-3249 or angela.reston-nunez@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For more than 30 years, Newmeyer & Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results for a wide array of clients. With over 70 attorneys practicing in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, construction and insurance law, Newmeyer & Dillion delivers legal services tailored to meet each client’s needs. Headquartered in Newport Beach, California, with offices in Walnut Creek, California and Las Vegas, Nevada, Newmeyer & Dillion attorneys are recognized by The Best Lawyers in America©, and Super Lawyers as top tier and some of the best lawyers in California, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949-854-7000 or visit www.ndlf.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Judgment for Insured Upheld After Insurer Rejects Claim for Hurricane Damage
April 15, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's judgment as modified against Lloyds for improperly denying a claim for damage caused by Hurricane Ike. Nat'l Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 1573 (Tex. Ct. App. Feb. 19, 2015).
Lewis sued Lloyds, alleging that, although her home and personal property were seriously damaged by Hurricane Ike, her claim was denied. At trial, Lloyds testified that the damage to Lewis' home had been previously caused by Hurricane Rita and Lloyds had already paid for repair of the roof. Nevertheless, Lewis had not used the payment for roof repairs. Lewis admitted that she used some of the payment after Hurricane Rita to purchase a generator and for evacuation expenses, but the majority of the payment was used for roof repairs.
Lewis' expert engineer testified that the damage to Lewis' home was caused by wind and water intrusion through a hole caused by a tree limb that fell during Hurricane Ike. The expert further opined that the cost to mitigate the damage to the home and bring it up to livable standard was $156,155. Further, the home was a constructive total loss.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
