Toolbox Talk Series Recap – Best Practices for Productive Rule 26(f) Conferences on Discovery Plans
May 13, 2024 —
Douglas J. Mackin - The Dispute ResolverIn the April 4, 2024 edition of Division 1’s Toolbox Talk Series,
Julian Ackert and
Steve Swart presented on how to prepare for and structure Rule 26(f) conferences to be more effective. While Swart and Ackert focused on the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) regarding the requisite conference of the parties prior to a scheduling conference or scheduling order, it is worth noting that many states have substantially similar requirements.
Rule 26(f) requires the parties to (i) discuss the nature and basis of their claims or defense; (ii) make or arrange for mandatory disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1); (iii) discuss issues about preserving discoverable information (including Electronically Stored Information – “ESI”); and (iv) develop a proposed discovery plan. Swart and Ackert’s presentation focused on the preservation of ESI and the proposed discovery plan.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’ConnorMr. Mackin may be contacted at
dmackin@cozen.com
Lewis Brisbois Listed as Top 10 Firm of 2022 on Leopard Solutions Law Firm Index
March 27, 2023 —
Lewis Brisbois NewsroomLos Angeles, Calif. (March 17, 2023) – Lewis Brisbois has been listed among the top 10 law firms on the 2022 Leopard Law Firm Index. Billed as "the legal industry's most inclusive and up-to-date firm rating system," the index, published by Leopard Solutions, is a dynamic rating system that is updated twice weekly and focuses on law firms' profitability, viability, growth, and potential opportunity. Each year, Leopard Solutions compiles a list of the index firms' overall scores for the previous year. For 2022, Lewis Brisbois ranked 8th, with an aggregate score of 446 out of a possible 500. Other firms in the top 10 include Kirkland & Ellis, Ropes & Gray, and DLA Piper.
The Leopard Law Firm Index provides insights into law firm health and stability, using a robust list of criteria. This includes growth in attorney headcount, average attorney tenure, increases in revenue per lawyer (RPL) over a five-year period, relative success in lateral recruiting, and general retention of partners and associates, as well as the overall diversity within a firm. In an interview with Law360 Pulse, Leopard Solutions VP of Sales & Marketing Phil Flora noted that the top 10 firms are some of the largest firms with above average ethnic diversity.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois
U.S. Housing Starts Top Forecast on Single-Family Homes
December 17, 2015 —
Victoria Stilwell – BloombergNew-home construction in the U.S. rebounded in November, led by gains in single-family dwellings that signal the residential real estate industry will continue to support growth in the world’s largest economy.
Housing starts climbed 10.5 percent to a 1.17 million annualized rate from a 1.06 million pace in October, figures from the Commerce Department showed Wednesday in Washington. The median estimate of 81 economists surveyed by Bloomberg was for a 1.13 million rate. Work began on the most stand-alone houses since January 2008, and permits for similar projects reached an eight-year high.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Victoria Stilwell, Bloomberg
Gordon & Rees Ranked #4 of Top 50 Construction Law Firms in the Nation by Construction Executive Magazine
July 11, 2022 —
GRSM Construction Team - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has been ranked as the No. 4 construction law firm in the nation by Construction Executive in the magazine’s 2022 ranking of The Top 50 Construction Law Firms™. As the only law firm with offices and attorneys in all 50 states, Gordon & Rees’ construction group (with over 150 construction lawyers) delivers maximum value to our clients by understanding their business and combining the resources of a full-service national firm with the local knowledge of a regional firm.
Led by Allen Estes and Angela Richie, the construction lawyers at Gordon & Rees are uniquely situated to serve our construction clients. We have attorneys with professional training and practical experience in related fields such as engineering and construction management, as well as lawyers with leadership experience in various construction industry related trade associations, legal advisory committees and government agencies. “If a client is looking for a legal partner in multiple states who understands their business, Gordon & Rees is that partner,” said Angela Richie.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
GRSM Construction Team, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Significant Victory for the Building Industry: Liberty Mutual is Rejected Once Again, This Time by the Third Appellate District in Holding SB800 is the Exclusive Remedy
December 15, 2016 —
Richard H. Glucksman & Ravi R. Mehta – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger Bulletin I. Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court (Certified for Publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016
The California Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District recently elaborated on the scope of the Right to Repair Act, commonly known as SB-800 (“Act”). In
Elliott Homes, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sacramento County (Kevin Hicks, et al.) (certified for publication, Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 2, 2016), the Court considered whether the Act (and specifically the Act’s pre-litigation procedure) applies, when homeowners plead construction defect claims based only on common law causes of action, as opposed to violations of the building standards set forth in the Act (
Civil Code §896). The Court answered this question affirmatively.
The homeowners of seventeen (17) single-family homes filed a Complaint against the builder of their homes, Elliott Homes, Inc. (“Elliott”), alleging common law causes of action for construction defects. Elliott filed a motion to stay the litigation on the ground that the homeowners failed to comply with the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The trial court denied the motion, agreeing with the homeowners that this pre-litigation procedure did not apply because the homeowners had not alleged a statutory violation of the Act. Elliott appealed. The Court of Appeal purely considered the question of whether the Act, including its pre-litigation procedure, applies when a homeowner pleads construction defect claims based on common law causes of action, and not on statutory violations of the Act’s building standards.
To answer this question, the Court analyzed a recent case decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District:
Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98. In this subrogation case, a builder’s insurer asserted common law causes of action (but not statutory building standard violations) alleging construction defects against the builder to recover amounts paid to the homeowner after a sprinkler system failure caused extensive damage to the subject property. The trial court sustained the builder’s demurrer to the Complaint on the ground that it was time-barred under the Act. The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order, holding that common law construction defect claims arising from actual damages are not covered by the Act because “the Act does not provide the exclusive remedy in cases where actual damage has occurred.” (
Liberty Mutual, 219 Cal.App.4th 98, 109).
The
Elliott Court declined to follow
Liberty Mutual, finding that that Court failed to properly analyze the language of the Act. The
Elliott Court analyzed both the statutory scheme and the legislative history of the Act to arrive at the conclusion that common law causes of action for construction defects do indeed fall within the purview of the Act.
According to the
Elliott Court, the Act “broadly applies to
any action seeking recovery of damages arising out of, or related to deficiencies in…residential construction and in such an action, a homeowner’s claims or causes of action shall be limited to violation of the standards set forth in the Act, except as specified.” Further, the Act expressly provides that “no other cause of action for a claim covered by this title or for damages recoverable under Section 944 is allowed.”
Civil Code §943(a). In turn,
Civil Code §944 allows for a recovery for the cost of repairing a building standard violation, or for the cost of repairing any damage caused by such a violation, among other things.
The limited exceptions to the Act’s applicability concern the enforcement of a contract, or any action for fraud, personal injury, or violation of a statute. Civil Code §943(a). Additionally, the Act does not apply to condominium conversions. Civil Code §896.
The Elliott Court explains that apart from these exceptions, the Legislature intended the Act to apply to all construction defect claims (regardless of damage) relating to the construction of residential properties whose sales contracts are signed after January 1, 2003. There is no exception in the Act, express or implied, for common law causes of action.
Next, the Court turns to the Act’s legislative history to buttress this conclusion. This history makes clear that the Act is a legislative response to the California Supreme Court’s holding in
Aas v. Superior Court (2000) 24 Cal.4th 627, that construction defects in residential properties are only actionable in tort when actual property damage manifests. Senate Judiciary Committee hearings indicate that the Act was the product of protracted negotiations between varying interested parties, including construction industry trade groups and consumer protection groups. The Legislature intended (1) to promulgate building standards, violations of which would be actionable, even without damage, and (2) to allow homeowners to recover for actual damage caused by construction defects not covered by the building standards. In other words, the Act was intended to provide homeowners redress regardless of whether damage had manifested.
Therefore, the Court concluded that common law causes of action for construction defects, regardless of damage, are subject to the pre-litigation procedure set forth in the Act. The Court issued a writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its earlier order, and to enter a new order granting Elliott’s motion to stay the litigation until the homeowners (and Elliott) have satisfied the pre-litigation procedure of the Act.
II. McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132
Similar to the Third Appellate District Court’s ruling in
Elliott, the Fifth Appellate District Court also rejected the holding of
Liberty Mutual in a matter now pending before the California Supreme Court:
McMillin Albany, LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132 (review granted and opinion superseded sub nom.
Albany v. Superior Court 360 P.3d 1022). Also similar to
Elliott, in
McMillin a group of homeowners filed common law construction defect claims against the builder of their homes. The builder,
McMillin, moved to stay the litigation pending compliance with the Act’s pre-litigation procedure. The trial court denied the motion, holding that the Act does not apply because the homeowners have not asserted statutory building standard violations contained within the Act.
In reasoning substantially similar to that of
Elliott, the
McMillin Court rejected Liberty Mutual’s holding that the Act is not the exclusive remedy for pursuing construction defect claims, with or without damage. Thus, the
McMillin Court issued a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s earlier order and to enter a new order granting McMillin’s motion to stay.
On November 24, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted the homeowners’ petition for review. In August of 2016, briefing was completed and the matter is now awaiting the scheduling of arguments. CGDRB will continue to closely monitor the pending appeal of this matter to the California Supreme Court, as well as all related developments.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard H. Glucksman, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
Ravi R. Mehta, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Mehta may be contacted at rmehta@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Avoid L&I Violations by Following Appropriate Safety Procedures
November 07, 2022 —
Reeya Patel - Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCDepartment of Labor and Industries of the State of Washington v. Roof Doctor, Inc. d/b/a Roof Doctors, Inc. of Tacoma (Unpublished opinion)
Roof Doctor, a company engaging maintenance of roofs, was hired to complete work for a commercial building in Tacoma in February 2018. During the job, Roof Doctor was cited for two violations by a Washington State Department of Labor and Industries’ (L&I) compliance inspector and seven additional asbestos violations. Each citation was rated with a probability of 1 – 3 to determine the likelihood of injury, illness, or disease. The ratings allowed issuance of an appropriate monetary penalty.
The disputes among the parties on appeal were as follows:
First, L&I and Roof Doctor disputed the asbestos probability ratings and calculated penalties. L&I produced as evidence, the fact that nine employees were physically hanging roofing material with asbestos, but none had training or knew that the material contained asbestos. L&I did agree that that most of the employees were experienced in handling roofing material and knew of the dangers that asbestos presented. Roof Doctor explained that because the employees were working outdoors, the danger of asbestos exposure was mitigated due to a low probability that a high concentration of asbestos could be inhaled by the employees when outdoors.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
DOD Contractors Receive Reprieve on Implementation of Chinese Telecommunications Ban
September 14, 2020 —
Lori Ann Lange & Sabah Petrov - Peckar & AbramsonIn our previous
alert, we discussed the expansion on the Section 889(a)(1)(B) ban on certain Chinese telecommunications equipment and services to contractors and subcontractors who use the equipment and services in their internal operations. Effective August 13, 2020, federal agencies were prohibited from procuring, obtaining, extending, or renewing a contract with a contractor that uses equipment, systems, or services that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component or as critical technology, unless an exception applies or a waiver is granted. Since then we have received feedback from contractors, complaining about the difficulties in determining whether their internal operations use covered telecommunications equipment and services and the need for additional time to become compliant or even obtain enough information to submit a waiver request.
Now it seems that Department of Defense (DoD) contractors and subcontractors may be getting a temporary reprieve. The DoD Under Secretary for Acquisition and Sustainment requested a waiver that would allow DoD to continue to execute procurement actions providing supplies, equipment, services, food, clothing, transportation, care, and support necessary to execute the DoD mission. The Director of National Intelligence granted the temporary waiver until September 30, 2020 pending a further review of waiver request. Depending upon the outcome of this additional review, the temporary waiver may be continued beyond September 30, 2020 if it is in the national security interests of the United States.
Reprinted courtesy of
Lori Ann Lange, Peckar & Abramson and
Sabah Petrov, Peckar & Abramson
Ms. Lange may be contacted at llange@pecklaw.com
Ms. Petrov may be contacted at spetrov@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Design Immunity of Public Entities: Sometimes Designs, Like Recipes, are Best Left Alone
October 21, 2015 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogApril 23, 1985 will live in infamy.
The Coca Cola Company, responding to diminishing sales as its “sweeter” rival Pepsi-Cola gained market share, announced that it was changing its “secret” recipe and introducing a new kind of Coke, referred to by the public simply as, “new Coke.”
The reaction was unexpected.
People around the world began hoarding “old Coke.” Protest groups, such as the Society for the Preservation of the Real Thing and Old Cola Drinkers of America, sprang up around the county. Angry letters addressed to “Chief Dodo” were sent to Coca-Cola’s chief executive officer. And even Fidel Castro, a longtime Coca-Cola drinker, joined the backlash calling “new Coke” a “sign of American capital decadence.”
By July it was over.
Coca-Cola announced that it would once again produce “old Coke,” and in a sign (I’m sure Fidel Castro would say) of American arrogance, announced that “old Coke” would be produced under the name “Coca-Cola Classic” alongside “new Coke” which would continue to be called “Coca-Cola” suggesting that “new Coke” would be the Coke of today as well as the future. By 1992, however, “new Coke” whose sales dwindled to 3% of market share was demoted to “Coke II” and by 2002 was discontinued entirely.
The moral of the story: Change the recipe at your own risk.
Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks
In the next case, Castro v. City of Thousand Oaks, Case No. B258649, California Court of Appeals for the Second District (August 31, 2015), the corollary might well be change the recipe design at your own risk.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
