Mobile Home Owners Not a Class in Drainage Lawsuit
March 01, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFComparing it to a “complex construction defect action,” the California Court of Appeals for Orange County has rejected the claims of a group of mobile home owners that they should be certified as a class in their lawsuit against Huntington Shorecliffs Mobilehome Park. The Appeals court sustained the judgment of the lower court. The court issued a decision in the case of Criswell v. MMR Family LLC on January 17, 2012.
The claims made by the group were that the owners and operators of the mobile home park had known of an “on-going and potentially worsening shallow groundwater condition on the property” and had “exacerbated the problem by changing ‘the configuration and drainage related to the hillside that abuts’ the park.” The homeowners claimed that the class should consist of “any past or current homeowner during the same time frame” who had experienced “the accumulation of mold, fungus, and/or other toxins,” “property damage to his/her mobilehome and/or other property resulting from drainage problems, water seepage, water accumulation, moisture build-up, mold, fungus, and/or other toxins,” emotional distress related to drainage problems or mold, and finally health problems “resulting from exposure to drainage problems, water seepage, water accumulation, moisture build-up, mold, fungus, and/or other toxins, in or around one’s home, lot, or common areas of the park.”
The lower court concluded that while the limits of the class were identifiable, they failed to constitute a class in other ways. First, the people affected were small enough in number that they could be brought together. They “are not so numerous that it would be impracticable to bring them all before the Court.”
The court noted that while many of the homeowners would have issues in common, they did not find “a well-defined community of interest among the class members.” The Appeals Court wrote that “the individual issues affecting each mobile home and homeowner will predominate over the common issue of the presence of standing or pooling water in and around the park.” The court noted that each home would be affected differently by water and “the ‘accumulation of mold, fungus, and/or other toxins.’”
While the court conceded that there would be common issues, such as the “defendants’ alleged concealment of excess moisture conditions and their allegedly negligent roadwork and landscaping,” they noted that “these common issues would be swamped by the swarm of individual determinations of property damage, emotional distress, and personal injury.” The Appeals Court cited an earlier case that ruled against certification “if a class action ‘will splinter into individual trials.’” The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court that they could not proceed as a class.
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Green Standards; Same Green Warnings for Architects & Engineers (law note)
January 13, 2014 —
Melissa Dewey Brumback - Construction Law in North CarolinaThe newest version of the LEED ratings system, LEED v4, has officially been released. For a comparison of the major changes between LEED 2009 and LEEDv4, check out this downloadable form from the USGBC.
As the folks at Schinnerer’s pointed out, there is one major change that is fraught with peril for design professionals– the requirement for increased transparency concerning the composition and performance requirements of composition materials.
Notes the insurance carrier:
“While design firms always had a level of responsibility for ongoing product research, the lack of standardized, affirmative industry data made it difficult for design firms and project owners to assess the impact of building materials on human health.
“As with many aspects of sustainability in design and construction, the danger to design firms is likely to come from self-inflicted perils. When a firm accepts responsibility to ‘ensure that a project meets its goals by using the best products that align with project requirements,’ it is essentially giving the project owner a guarantee that is both beyond the firm’s control and uninsurable by any insurance carried by a firm.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Melissa Dewey BrumbackMs. Brumback can be contacted at
mbrumback@rl-law.com
COVID-19 Pandemic Preference Amendments to Bankruptcy Code Benefiting Vendors, Customers, Commercial Landlords and Tenants
May 03, 2021 —
Andrew Arthur & Steven Ostrow - White and Williams LLPOver the last three months, Congress has passed major pieces of legislation primarily in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA), which was signed into law on December 27, 2020. In addition to funding the federal government and a second round of pandemic relief, the CAA contains several amendments to the Bankruptcy Code. One of the amendments provides preference protection to commercial landlords and suppliers who receive overdue payments from their tenants or customers under agreements made on or after March 13, 2020 to postpone the payment of rent or supplier charges.
The preference amendments encourage these creditors to afford their customers and tenants payment deferment arrangements without the risk that the companies will clawback the payments as preferences if they later file for bankruptcy protection. The amendments should facilitate workouts of distribution and leasing agreements to help distressed businesses recover and repay arrearages as COVID-19 related governmental restrictions are lifted this year.
Reprinted courtesy of
Andrew Arthur, White and Williams LLP and
Steven Ostrow, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Ostrow may be contacted at ostrows@whiteandwilliams.com
Mr. Arthur may be contacted at arthura@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Labor Development Impacting Developers, Contractors, and Landowners
June 25, 2019 —
John Bolesta & Keahn Morris - Sheppard Mullin Construction & Infrastructure Law BlogIt is unlawful for unions to secondarily picket construction sites or to coercively enmesh neutral parties in the disputes that a union may have with another employer. This area of the law is governed by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the federal law that regulates union-management relations and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), the federal administrative agency that is tasked with enforcing the NLRA. But NLRB decisions issued during the Obama administration have allowed a union to secondarily demonstrate at job sites and to publicize their beefs over the use of non-union contractors there, provided the union does not actually “picket” the site. In those decisions, the NLRB narrowed its definition of unlawful “picketing,” thereby, limiting the scope of unlawful activity prohibited by law. Included in such permissible nonpicketing secondary activity is the use of stationary banners or signs and the use of inflatable effigies, typically blow-up rats or cats, designed to capture the public’s attention at an offending employer’s job site or facilities.
A recently released NLRB advice memo, however, signals the likely reversal of those earlier decisions and that contractors and owners may now be able to stop such harassing union job site tactics simply by filing a secondary boycott unfair labor practice change with the NLRB. The 18 page memo, dated December 20, 2018 (and released to the public on May 14, 2019), directs the NLRB’s Region 13 to issue a complaint against the Electrician’s Union in a dispute coming out of Chicago where the union erected a large, inflatable effigy, a cat clutching a construction worker by the neck, and posted a large stationary banner proclaiming its dispute to be with the job’s general contractor over the use of a non-union electrical sub at the job site’s entrance. Though not an official Board decision, the memo suggests the NLRB General Counsel’s (GC) belief that the earlier Obama era decisions may have been wrongly decided and should be reconsidered by the NLRB on the theories that the Union’s nonpicketing conduct was tantamount to unlawful secondary picketing, that it constituted “signal” picketing that unlawfully induced or encouraged the employees of others to cease working with the subs or that it constituted unlawful coercion.
Reprinted courtesy of
John Bolesta, Sheppard Mullin and
Keahn Morris, Sheppard Mullin
Mr. Bolesta may be contacted at jbolesta@sheppardmullin.com
Mr. Morris may be contacted at kmorris@sheppardmullin.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Farewell Capsule Tower, Tokyo’s Oddest Building
April 25, 2022 —
Reed Stevenson - BloombergAnyone who has seen Tokyo's Nakagin Capsule Tower will remember it. Studded with grey cubes, the striking building carries an obvious architectural message: this is a modular habitat.
Built half a century ago during Japan’s dizzying ascent as an economic power, the 140-unit complex has been left behind by the times, overshadowed by taller and sleeker skyscrapers that overlook the city of 14 million.
Once demolition officially starts April 12, scaffolding will surround the two towers that make up the building. The capsules will then be plucked off one by one, most likely behind protective sheets of plastic because they contain asbestos.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Reed Stevenson, Bloomberg
U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments: Maritime Charters and the Specter of a New Permitting Regime
February 24, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelEarlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two important environmental cases—one that could change the approach to routine maritime charters and another that could introduce a potentially punishing permitting regime via a CWA citizen suit.
Cleaning the Delaware: CITGO Asphalt Refining Company v. Frescati Shipping Company
The CITGO case involves a large oil spill into the Delaware River, and who bears financial responsibility for the cleanup. CITGO chartered an oil tanker to bring Venezuelan crude oil to CITGO’s New Jersey refinery located on the Delaware River. The tanker struck a submerged and abandoned anchor within yards of the refinery, and a large and expensive oil spill resulted. In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act, both the shipper, Frescati Shipping Company, and the United States, paid for the immediate oil spill response, and CITGO was later sued for a large share of these costs based on the fact that it entered into a charter with Frescati, which obliged CITGO to provide a “safe berth.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that CITGO was liable under the principles of maritime law, meaning that CITGO was strictly liable for the spill even if no one knew that the anchor was present on the floor of the river or lurking in the waters of the Delaware River. CITGO has argued that this result is unfair and poses a threat to the maritime shipping industry if it is held to be strictly liable for this spill. It appears that this is may well be the majority rule that is applied when interpreting these routinely entered maritime charters. The Court’s decision will be immensely important to the shipping industry.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Doctrine of Avoidable Consequences as Affirmative Defense
January 31, 2018 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe doctrine of avoidable consequences is an affirmative defense that can be used in certain property damage lawsuits. This is a defense that does not go to liability, but it goes to damages. This doctrine of avoidable consequences defense holds that a plaintiff cannot recover damages caused by a defendant that the plaintiff could have reasonably avoided . See Media Holdings, LLC v. Orange County, Florida, 43 Fla.L.Weekly D237c (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). Stated differently, if the plaintiff could have reasonably avoided the consequences of the damages caused by the defendant then the plaintiff cannot recover those damages. However, the defendant needs to prove this defense — the burden is on the defendant to establish this defense (ideally through expert testimony).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Georgia Court Rules that Separate Settlements Are Not the End of the Matter
October 14, 2013 —
CDJ STAFFThe Georgia Court of Appeals recently took up the question of how parties in a construction defect settlement relate to one another in terms of apportioning the settlement. Scott Murphy, writing on the Barnes & Thornburg blog clarifies the issues. The underlying construction defect case involved a newly-constructed hotel with mold and mildew problems. The owners sued the contractor (for negligent construction) and the architect (for negligent design). Separately, the owners settled with the contractor for $2.3 million and the architect for $100,000. Subsequently, the contractor sued the architect, attempting to recover part of the settlement the contractors had made with the owners.
At trial, the architect prevailed, obtaining a summary judgment that under Georgia law, “joint-tortfeasors can no longer assert contribution or non-contractual indemnity claims.” This was reversed by the Court of Appeals, determining that the two were not joint tortfeasors. Mr. Murphy notes that “the court rejected the parties’ attempt to disavow joint and several liability in their respective settlement agreements.” The court ruled that the contractor could proceed with their claims against the argument.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
