Newmeyer Dillion Attorneys Named to 2020 Southern California Rising Stars List
June 22, 2020 —
Newmeyer DillionProminent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion is pleased to announce that partner Eric Rollins and associates Jason Moberly Caruso and Richard Protzmann have been selected to the 2020 Southern California Rising Stars list by Super Lawyers. Each year, no more than 2.5 percent of the lawyers in the state are selected to receive this honor. The attorneys will be recognized in the June 2020 issues of Super Lawyers Magazine, Los Angeles Magazine and Orange Coast Magazine.
Eric Rollins, a partner in the Newport Beach office, provides legal counsel in a diverse array of practice areas with a focus on business, real estate, construction, insurance, and entertainment law. In his more than ten years at the firm, Eric has litigated and resolved hundreds of matters in both state and federal court through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, and trial. This is his third year as a Rising Star honoree.
Jason Moberly Caruso is an associate in the Newport Beach office. Jason's practice focuses on various aspects of "contaminated sites" environmental legal work, complex litigation, and appellate matters. This is the fifth consecutive year Jason has been honored.
Richard Protzmann is an associate in the Newport Beach office. Richard's practice focuses on focuses his practice on areas of business litigation, eminent domain, environmental law, zoning and land use, and general real estate litigation. This is the first year Richard has been selected.
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process evaluates candidates on 12 indicators of peer recognition and professional achievement, resulting in a comprehensive, credible and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys. The Rising Stars list is developed using the same selection process except candidates must be either 40 years old or younger, or have been in practice for 10 years or less.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that achieve client objectives in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as a cohesive team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, environmental/land use, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers holistic and integrated legal services tailored to propel each client's operations, growth, and profits. 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 Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Beginning of the 2020 Colorado Legislative Session: Here We Go Again
February 10, 2020 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationThe 2020 Colorado legislative session started on Wednesday, January 8th. It seems like there will be plenty of issues this year to which home builders will want to pay close attention. On January 13th, Senators Fenberg, Foote, and Jackson sponsored SB 20-093, known as the “Consumer and Employee Dispute Resolution Fairness Act.”
For certain consumer and employment arbitrations, the act:
- Prohibits the waiver of standards for and challenges for evident partiality prior to a claim being filed and requires any waiver of such provisions after the claim is filed to be in writing;
- Provides that the right of a party to challenge an arbitrator based on evident partiality is waived if not raised within a reasonable time of learning of the information leading to the challenge but that such right is not waived if caused by the opposing party;
- Establishes ethical standards for arbitrators; and
- Requires specified public disclosures by arbitration services providers but includes protections for certain confidential information.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Can I Record a Lis Pendens in Arizona if the Lawsuit is filed Another Jurisdiction?
September 26, 2022 —
Ben Reeves - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogRecent research I did on a case led me to the conclusion that Arizona law recognizes foreign litigation (i.e., a lawsuit filed outside of Arizona) as a justification for the recording of a lis pendens against real property located within Arizona. See
TWE Retirement Fund Trust v. Ream, 198 Ariz. 268 (Ct. App. 2000). Apparently, there’s some debate about whether foreign litigation can support a local lis pendens. See
Boca Petroco, Inc. v. Petroleum Realty II, 285 Ga. 487 (Ga. 2009). As noted in the TWE case, Arizona’s lis pendens statute
(A.R.S. 12-1191) does not discriminate between local or foreign “actions.” As such, if litigation is pending anywhere that affects Arizona real property, a lis pendens can (and probably should) be filed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Ben Reeves, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Reeves may be contacted at breeves@swlaw.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Contractual Impartiality Requires an Appraiser to be Unbiased, Disinterested, and Unswayed by Personal Interest
June 01, 2020 —
Frank Ingham - Colorado Construction Litigation BlogOn June 24, 2019, the Colorado Supreme Court held that when a contract or insurance policy requires an “impartial” appraisal, the appraiser for a party cannot be an advocate for that party.[1] In this situation, the appraiser must be unbiased, disinterested, without prejudice, and unswayed by personal interest. Id.
Owners Insurance Company (“Owners”) issued a policy to the Dakota Station II Condominium Association, Inc. (“Association”) that represents a 49-building multifamily residential property in Jefferson County, Colorado. Concerning loss conditions, the policy includes an appraisal provision requiring that, in the event of property appraisal, “each party will select a competent and impartial appraiser.” The parties would then select an umpire or have one appointed by the court. Any agreement as to the values reached by two of the three would bind them all.
On May 24, 2012, the Association made a storm-damage roofing claim to Owners for $1.33 million. The parties could not agree on the amount of the loss and the Association invoked the policy’s appraisal process. The Association retained Scott Benglen as its contingent-fee cap appraiser. Mr. Benglen retained Laura Haber as a policy and damage expert, who appraised the roof loss at $2.55 million and the total replacement at $4.3 million.[2] Owners’ appraiser, Mark Burns, submitted the loss at $1.86 million with the replacement cost award of $2.3 million. The umpire, Honorable James Miller, adopted Owners’ estimates in four of the six categories, awarding just over $3 million to the Association. Id.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Frank Ingham, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & RoswellMr. Ingham may be contacted at
ingham@hhmrlaw.com
Las Vegas HOA Case Defense Attorney Alleges Misconduct by Justice Department
November 05, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Daniel Albregts, who represents Benzer, filed court papers accusing Justice Department lawyers of misconduct that allowed the newspaper to obtain what are now sealed FBI and Las Vegas police reports of the failed negotiations in the summer of 2011." Albregts claimed that "prosecutors promised lawyers for Benzer’s co-defendant, attorney Keith Gregory, that they would not object if the lawyers filed reports of the negotiations under seal in a related matter in September, but then turned around in court and told a federal judge the reports should be made public."
The investigative reports had been sealed, however, "after prosecutors argued to make them public, U.S. Magistrate Judge George Foley Jr. ordered them unsealed." The reports were sealed again two days later, but the media (including the Las Vegas Review-Journal) obtained the documents while they were public.
“This conduct, when viewed in the light of the ceaseless and inflammatory reporting, particularly with regard to this defendant, is the kind of conduct which can only be remedied through dismissal,” Albregts wrote, as quoted in the Las Vegas-Review Journal.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Construction Litigation Roundup: “The New Empty Chair.”
June 04, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyIn a unanimous opinion, the United States Supreme Court ruled that cases in litigation in federal court but which are determined to be governed by the Federal Arbitration Act should be stayed pending arbitration, not dismissed.
Traditionally, some federal circuits treated the text of 9 U.S.C. §3 – which speaks in terms of a stay of a matter filed in court but referred to arbitration (“…shall on application of one of the parties stay the trial of the action until such arbitration has been had in accordance with the terms of the agreement…”) – as discretionary, dismissing suits when all of the claims brought in the court were referred to arbitration.
In the case, the plaintiffs sued in Arizona state court on labor law violations, and the case was removed to federal court. When the defendant moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss, the plaintiffs “conceded that all of their claims were arbitrable.” Nonetheless, the plaintiffs requested a stay of the case, which the district court refused, dismissing the case without prejudice.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Missouri Legislature Passes Bill to Drastically Change Missouri’s “Consent Judgment” Statute
August 10, 2021 —
Jason Taylor - Traub Lieberman Insurance Law BlogOn June 29, 2021, Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed SB-HB 345 into law, which will drastically change Section 537.065 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. Section 537.065 provides an insured who has been denied insurance coverage a statutory mechanism to settle certain tort claims through an agreement akin to a consent judgment. Typically referred to as a “065 Agreement,” the statute allows a plaintiff and insured-tortfeasor to settle a claim for damages and specify which assets are available to satisfy the claim, typically the tortfeasor’s available insurance policy. In the past, such agreements were often accomplished without the insurer’s participation or even its knowledge. Under such agreements, the insured-tortfeasor assigns all rights to the insurance policy to the plaintiff and agrees not to contest the issues of liability or damages. In exchange the plaintiff agrees not to execute any judgment against the insured. The parties conduct what amounts to an uncontested and often “sham” trial resulting in a judgment far in excess of any actual damages or applicable policy limits had the case been contested. In a subsequent proceeding to collect on the judgment, the tortfeasor’s insurer is bound by the determinations of liability and damages made in the underlying action.
This statutory framework presented plenty of opportunities for abuse. In 2017, the statute was amended in order to address some of those issues, including a requirement that the insured provide notice of a settlement demand under Section 065 and providing insurers a limited right to intervene in the tort action before liability and damages have been determined. Ostensibly, the intent of the 2017 amendments was to reduce the number of large and uncontested judgments and allow the insurance carrier an opportunity to continue litigating the injured party’s claim where the insured has no incentive or is contractually prohibited from doing so. Yet, creative plaintiff’s attorneys found several “loopholes” around these changes, most prominently, by moving their disputes from state court to binding arbitration and dispensing with notice to the insurer altogether, or at least until after the arbitration has concluded.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jason Taylor, Traub LiebermanMr. Taylor may be contacted at
jtaylor@tlsslaw.com
Arbitration Clause Found Ambiguous in Construction Defect Case
October 28, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe California Court of Appeals ruled on September 28 in the case of Burch v. Premier Homes. Ms. Burch bought a home after negotiating various addendums to the contract. The contract was a standard California Association of Realtors contract to which both the buyer and seller made additions. At issue in this case was paragraph 17 of the contract which included that “Buyer and Seller agree that any dispute or claim in Law or equity arising between them out of this Agreement or resulting transaction, which is not settled through mediation, shall be decided by neutral, binding arbitration.”
The seller/defendant’s Addendum 2 “included provisions relating to the arbitration of disputes that may arise.” Ms. Burch’s realtor, Lisa Morrin, told Burch that “she had never seen a proposed contractual provision that would require a home buyer to agree to arbitrate with a builder over construction defects.” Ms. Burch told Morrin that she did not want to buy the property if she would have to give up her rights under California law.
As part of Addendum 2, the buyer had to buy a warranty from the Home Buyers Warranty Corporation. The sale was held up for a while, as Ms. Burch waited for a copy of the warranty. When she received it, she took further exception to Addendum 2. Scott Warren of Premier Homes said he could not sell the property without Addendum 2. Ms. Burch told her realtor that despite the claims made by Mr. Warren that this was for her benefit, she felt it was more to the benefit of Premier Homes. Don Aberbrook of HBW agreed to the clause, contained in the final sentence of Addendum 2, being struck.
Subsequent to buying the home, Burch submitted a claim concerning construction defects. HBW denied the claim and Burch began an action against the defendants. Premier filed a motion to compel arbitration which Burch opposed.
The trial court ruled that the striking out of the arbitration clause at the end of Addendum 2 “created a conflict with respect to the parties’ intent as to the scope of arbitration.” The trial court found that “the parties’ intention was to preserve Burch’s right to make state law claims including her right to a jury trial for any non-warranty claims against the builder.”
The appeals court in their ruling looked at the standard of review and concluded that the purchase agreement was ambiguous and that extrinsic evidence was required to resolve that ambiguity. As the contract contained contradictory provisions as to whether or not arbitration was required, it was necessary for the trial court to examine these claims. The appeals court found that the evidence supported the conclusions of the trial court.
Finally, the appeals court found that “there was no valid agreement to arbitrate disputes.” The court noted that arbitration can only happen by mutual consent and “it is clear that Burch did not enter into an agreement to arbitrate any construction defect disputes she might have.”
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
