Client Alert: Naming of Known and Unknown Defendants in Initial Complaints: A Cautionary Tale
September 24, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin & Whitney L. Stefko – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPOn September 12, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Butler v. National Community Renaissance of California, upheld a district court's dismissal of certain defendants named in amended complaints, affirming the necessity of naming those known and unknown defendants in Plaintiff's original complaint.
In April 2009, Plaintiff Zina Butler filed an action in federal district court, naming a single defendant, National Community Renaissance Corporation ("National"), for an alleged warrantless search of Plaintiff's apartment on April 18, 2007. The single page complaint asserted that the apartment manager provided a Section 8 investigator, a City employee and Sherriff deputies keys to Plaintiff's apartment and conducted a search in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. Shortly after, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, with the only change being the addition of defendant, the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles ("HACoLA") in the caption. In May 2009, the court (on its own accord) dismissed the first amended complaint with leave to amend as "it [was] unclear whom Plaintiff intend[ed] to sue."
In June 2009, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, identifying National and HACoLA in the caption as defendants, but separately identifying several other individuals and entities allegedly involved in the incident occurring in April of 2007 in the complaint's statement of facts. The Court, once again, dismissed the second amended complaint with leave to amend for the same reasons it dismissed Plaintiff's first amended complaint.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Whitney L. Stefco, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com; Ms. Stefko may be contacted at wstefko@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Home Prices on the Rise
September 03, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to CoreLogic, in July, housing prices rose 6.9% compared to last year, reported Housing Wire. Furthermore, prices increased by 1.7% compared to June 2015.
“Home sales continued their brisk rebound in July and home prices reflected that, up 6.9% from a year ago,” Frank Nothaft, chief economist for CoreLogic, told Housing Wire. “Over the same period, the National Association of Realtors reported existing sales up 10% and the Census Bureau reported new home sales up 26% in July.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Obama Says Keystone Decision May Be Announced in Weeks or Months
March 05, 2015 —
Justin Sink – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said a decision on whether to approve the Keystone XL pipeline is possible in weeks or months.
The president told Reuters in an interview Monday that the decision definitely “will happen before the end of my administration.” Asked to be specific, he said, “Weeks or months.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Justin Sink, BloombergMr. Sink may be contacted at
jsink1@bloomberg.net
What is the True Value of Rooftop Solar Panels?
April 15, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn Colorado, regulators are questioning the true value of rooftop solar panels, reported the Denver Business Journal: “Minneapolis-based Xcel Energy Inc. (NYSE: XEL), the biggest utility in Colorado, has said it believes Colorado’s current ‘net metering’ policy means the utility is overpaying customers who have rooftop solar power systems.”
Currently, “Xcel...credits customers at a rate of 10.5 cents per kilowatt hour of excess power produced.” However, the utility company believes that “the ‘true value’ of the rooftop solar electricity is about half what it’s paying—just 4.6 cents per kilowatt hour.”
According to the Denver Business Journal, supporters argue that “Xcel has undervalued the electricity and hasn’t accounted for the systems’ environmental and economic attributes.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
There Is No Sympathy If You Fail to Read Closely the Final Negotiated Construction Contract
February 28, 2022 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesWhen an opinion in a case starts with, “Unlike some motions, not even the most ingenious lawyers could make this one complicated,” you know you are in for an interesting read. This was how the opinion started in U.S. f/u/b/o Hambric Steel and Fabrication, Inc. v. Leebcor Services, LLC, 2022 WL 345636 (M.D. GA. 2022), which concerns a Miller Act payment bond dispute between a subcontractor and prime contractor on a federal construction project.
As demonstrated below, the moral of this case is in fact simple. Read what you sign BEFORE you sign! No ifs, ands, or buts. Failure to do so will garner very little sympathy.
This case dealt with a prime contractor arguing that the subcontractor pulled the wool over its eyes by surreptitiously altering the final negotiated redlined contract between the parties. In particular, the prime contractor claimed that the dispute resolution provision was supposed to include a Virginia venue provision. However, the subcontractor “fraudulently” changed this provision to make it a Georgia venue provision after the final contract had been agreed to during the negotiation. Yet, it is undisputed that the executed contract between the parties included a Georgia venue provision.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Application of Set-Off When a Defendant Settles in Multiparty Construction Dispute
January 05, 2017 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThe defense of set-off is an important defense in construction disputes, particularly multiparty disputes. For more information on this defense, please check out this
article as it explains the application of set-off in civil disputes in detail.
The issue of set-off will come up in a multiparty dispute when a plaintiff settles with one or more of the defendants. The remaining defendant(s) wants the benefit of that settlement to set-off and reduce any judgment against it. An example of this scenario can be found in Escadote I Corp. v. Ocean Three Limited Partnership, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D23a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
In this case, an owner of a condominium unit sued the condominium association, the developer, and the general contractor for water intrusion and mold infestation. The claim against the condominium association was the only claim that entitled the owner to attorney’s fees pursuant to its lawsuit (thus, attorney’s fees were isolated to only that claim against the association). During trial, the owner settled with the association. In entering a settlement, the owner smartly allocated the settlement amount such that $500 was allocated to its principal damages and $374,500 was allocated to its attorney’s fees. The owner then obtained a jury verdict against the contractor and developer for approximately $2M, jointly and severally, and the contractor and developer wanted the entire $375,000 settlement amount with the association to be set-off from the $2M verdict. The trial court set-off the entire $375,000 from the jury verdict when entering judgment. The appellate court reversed.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@katzbarron.com
Ohio Court of Appeals Affirms Judgment in Landis v. Fannin Builders
April 20, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFThe Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in Landis v. William Fannin Builders. Landis contracted Fannin Builders to build their home. The case involved staining problems on the T1-11 siding chosen by the plaintiffs.
After a year and a half of discussion on how to resolve the problem of uneven staining on the siding, Landis filed suit “against Fannin Builders, alleging claims for breach of contract, breach of the express limited warranty, and violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (“OCSPA”). Fannin Builders, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against 84 Lumber, alleging claims for breach of contract and indemnification. With the trial court’s leave, Fannin Builders also later amended its answer to add a counterclaim against appellees for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. In the counterclaim, Fannin Builders alleged that appellees still owed it $3,908.98 for the construction of appellees’ home.”
“In its decision, the trial court found in appellees’ favor on their breach of contract claim and against appellees on their claims for breach of the express limited warranty and violation of the OCSPA. Additionally, the trial court found in Fannin Builders’ favor on its counterclaim for breach of contract and against Fannin Builders on its third-party claims for breach of contract and indemnity. The trial court determined that appellees’ damages amounted to $66,906.24, and after setting off the $3,908.98 that appellees owed Fannin Builders under the construction contract, the trial court awarded appellees $62,997.26. The trial court reduced its decision to judgment on May 18, 2010.”
Fannin Builders appealed this judgment and assigned the following errors:
[1.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant Breached its Contract with Appellees when it provided a Semi-Transparent Oil-Based Stain that Simply did not Meet their Approval.
[a.] The Contract does not Contain a Satisfaction Clause.
[b.] Even if the Court Implies a Satisfaction Clause, the Court Should Apply an Objective Standard.
[2.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Failing to Consider Appellant’s Right to Cure.
[3.] The Trial Court committed Reversible Error by not Assessing Damages Using “Diminished Value Standard,” and by Creating a Remedy that Constitutes Economic Waste.
[4.] The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law by Concluding that Appellant is Barred from Seeking Indemnification When 84 [Lumber] Never Fulfilled its Obligations Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement Entered on August 2, 2005.
In response to the first assigned error, the Court of Appeals stated: “Because the failure to provide siding of a uniform color, not appellees’ displeasure, breached the contract, we reject Fannin Builders’ contention that the trial court implied a satisfaction clause into the contract and found a breach of that clause. Accordingly, we overrule Fannin Builders’ first assignment of error.”
The Court of Appeals overruled the second assignment of error and provided the following reasoning: “Although Fannin Builders depends upon a term of the limited warranty for its right to cure, the trial court concluded that no breach of the limited warranty occurred. Fannin Builders breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIA’s Quality Standards. Consequently, the limited warranty does not apply to this case, and thus, it does not prevent appellees’ recovery of damages.”
The Appeals Court found “the trial court’s award of damages” was “both reasonable and supported by competent, credible evidence,” and therefore concluded “that the trial court did not err in setting appellees’ damages at $62,997.26.” The Fannin Builders third assignment of error was overruled.
The fourth and final assignment of error was also overruled by the Court of Appeals. “While Fannin Builders correctly asserts that 84 Lumber never installed the replacement siding, it ignores the fact that it ordered 84 Lumber to remove the replacement siding from appellees’ property. Thus, Fannin Builders precluded 84 Lumber from completely performing under the August 2, 2005 letter agreement. […] Consequently, Fannin Builders cannot now claim that the letter agreement is unenforceable or that it is entitled to indemnification from 84 Lumber. Because Fannin Builders assumed all liability for the defective siding in the letter agreement, it is responsible for appellees’ damages.”
James A. Zitesman, Columbus, Ohio Business Attorney, compared the case to Jones v. Centex (Ohio App. 2010), which had a different verdict:
“The common thread is the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the Jones case, the Court found that the buyers had in fact waived all implied warranties, including the implied warranty of good workmanship. In the contract between Jones and Centex, the builder stated that it “…would not sell the property to Purchasers without this waiver.” Probably should have been a sign to the buyers.
In the Landis case, the Court stated, “Contracts for the future construction of a residence include a duty, implied by law, that the builder must perform its work in a workmanlike manner.” The Court gave significant weight to the concept of the implied warranty of good workmanship. The builder relied upon the BIA Warranty which limits builders’ liability and exposure to legal issues. The trial court concluded there was no breach of the limited warranty, rather the builder “breached the duty of workmanlike conduct implicit in the construction contract, not the limited warranty requiring it to satisfy the BIAs Quality Standards.”
The Supreme Court of Ohio has accepted the Jones v. Centex Homes case for review.
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
How Fort Lauderdale Recovered a Phished $1.2M Police HQ Project Payment
May 13, 2024 —
Richard Korman - Engineering News-RecordJan. 25th was a happy day for the city of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., as Mayor Dean Trentalis and Police Chief William Schultz announced in a press conference the recovery of a $1.162-million electronic payment meant for Moss Construction that had been stolen in September via an email phishing fraud.
Reprinted courtesy of
Richard Korman, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Korman may be contacted at kormanr@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
