Ohio Condo Development Case Filed in 2011 is Scheduled for Trial
April 09, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFIn a recent hearing regarding the Cleveland, Ohio case Stonebridge Towers Homeowners v K&D Group, Judge John O’Donnell scheduled a trial for May 28th. Lead attorney for the homeowners stated that they would settle for “ten million and change,” according to The Plain Dealer. However, an attorney for K&D Group retorted that “the damaged condos could be fixed for much less money.”
“The lawsuit claims negligent design, poor construction and multiple defects resulted from fraud and bribe-paying by the developers,” reported Plain Dealer.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Living Makes Buildings Better with Computational Design
November 12, 2019 —
Aarni Heiskanen - AEC BusinessThe AEC industry has a responsibility and mandate when it comes to addressing significant global challenges in the sector and improving operational practice. Professionals such as Lorenzo Villaggi, Senior Research Scientist at The Living, believe that new design technologies hold the key to better-performing built environments.
“Although I’m trained as an architect, I’ve always had an interest in how technology can interact with and have an impact on design processes,” says Lorenzo. “I’ve developed a familiarity with advanced computational tools and eventually developed my own.”
These computational tools are primarily designed to assist with the generation of design options and improve performance analysis. They range from small systems that help users design faster, all the way to elaborate software that can perform complex, mission-critical tasks.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Aarni Heiskanen, AEC BusinessMr. Heiskanen may be contacted at
aec-business@aepartners.fi
Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Selected to Best Lawyers in America© Orange County and as Attorneys of the Year 2018
August 17, 2017 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPNEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – AUGUST 17, 2017 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that nine of the firm’s attorneys were recently recognized in their respective areas in The Best Lawyers in America© 2018. Two attorneys, Gregory Dillion and Thomas Newmeyer, also have been selected as an Orange County "Lawyer of the Year." Attorneys named to The Best Lawyers in America, include:
| Jason M. Caruso |
Personal Injury Litigation, Product Liability Litigation |
| Michael S. Cucchissi |
Real Estate Law |
| Gregory L. Dillion |
Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Insurance Law, Litigation – Construction, Litigation – Real Estate |
| Jeffrey M. Dennis |
Insurance Law |
| Joseph A. Ferrentino |
Litigation – Construction, Litigation – Real Estate |
| Thomas F. Newmeyer |
Commercial Litigation, Construction Law, Litigation – Real Estate |
| John A. O'Hara |
Litigation – Construction |
| Bonnie T. Roadarmel |
Insurance Law |
| Carol Sherman Zaist |
Commercial Litigation |
Additionally, Gregory Dillion was selected as the Orange County Construction Litigation "Lawyer of the Year" and Thomas Newmeyer was selected as the Orange County Construction Law "Lawyer of the Year."
Best Lawyers is the oldest peer-review publication within the legal profession with a history of over 30 years. Attorneys are selected through intensive peer-review surveys in which leading lawyers evaluate their professional peers. Their listings are published in 75 countries worldwide and are recognized for their reliable and unbiased selections. Newmeyer & Dillion is immensely proud of these lawyers and looks forward to their future endeavors.
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
Insurance Client Alert: Mere Mailing of Policy and Renewals Into California is Not Sufficient Basis for Jurisdiction Over Bad Faith Lawsuit
January 28, 2015 —
Valerie A. Moore and Christopher Kendrick – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Greenwell v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (No. C074546, filed 1/27/15), a California appeals court held that the use of a mailing address to send policies and renewals into California did not support jurisdiction for a California resident's bad faith lawsuit against a Michigan insurer over property coverage for a fire loss to a building in Arkansas.
In Greenwell, the insured was a California resident engaged in real estate investment. He purchased an apartment building in Little Rock, Arkansas. Using the services of an insurance broker in Little Rock, he purchased a package of general liability and commercial property insurance for the building from Auto-Owners Insurance Company, a Michigan insurer not licensed in California. The policy listed the insured's business address in California, the policy was mailed there, and renewed three times via the insured's California address.
Reprinted courtesy of
Valerie A. Moore, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Christopher Kendrick, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Moore may be contacted at vmoore@hbblaw.com, Mr. Kendrick may be contacted at ckendrick@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Complex Civil Litigation Superior Court Panels
December 31, 2014 —
Richard H. Glucksman, Esq., Jon A. Turigliatto, Esq., and David A. Napper, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger BulletinThe Complex Civil Litigation Program is relatively new as it has only existed in California
since 2000. Complex divisions dedicate courtrooms solely for litigation of complex civil
cases that require exceptional judicial management including construction defects, antitrust,
securities, toxic torts, mass torts, and class actions. Complex civil courtrooms help the trial
court operate in a more efficient, expeditious, and effective manner. A complex court
reduces costs for litigants by streamlining motion practice and expeditiously resolving
discovery disputes.
Not all counties have dedicated complex civil divisions. For those that do, each county has
its own local rules, and some complex divisions have their own particular set of rules. The
Judicial management of complex cases begins early, and is applied continuously and actively
with the idea that final resolution be expedited as much as possible. In focusing on
cooperation amongst the parties to achieve these goals, often requiring joint statements to
the court and a prohibition on discovery motions until after the parties have formally metand-
conferred on the issues. Moreover, complex cases are centralized and are assigned to
one highly skilled Judge for all purposes.
The first six California counties to create a Complex Civil division include Alameda, Contra
Costa, Los Angeles, Orange, San Francisco, and Santa Clara. Riverside County Superior
Court is the most recent California County to add a Complex division, effective January 2015.
Riverside county Superior Court’s Complex department consists of ten civil judges, seven of
which are in the main courthouse with Riverside. Riverside county expects to consolidate all
complex civil litigation into one courtroom by January 2015. Riverside county Judge Sharon
Waters state that "[i]t's been something that I personally have felt has been long overdue"
and that "[t]he idea is that put it with one judge and let him or her develop the expertise."
Judge Waters believes "[t]he potential value of establishing a complex litigation courtroom
[is that] it allows the judge to focus on the cases full time."1
As of October 2014, Riverside county had about 450 to 500 pending cases designated as
complex, over fifty percent (50%) of which involved construction defect matters. The sole
Judge who will preside over the complex cases has not yet been named.
1 Jolly, Vik. "Riverside to Shift Complex Civil Cases to 1 Courtroom." Los Angeles Daily Journal (October 13,
2014)
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard H. Glucksman,
Jon A. Turigliatto and
David A. Napper
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com;
Mr. Turigliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com;
and Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
SEC Approves New Securitization Risk Retention Rule with Broad Exception for Qualified Residential Mortgages
November 26, 2014 —
Neil P. Casey & Lori S. Smith – White and Williams LLPThe Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and five other federal agencies recently approved a joint rule (the “Risk Retention Rule”) mandating that sponsors of certain types of securitizations retain a minimum level of credit risk exposure in those transactions and prohibiting such sponsors from transferring or hedging against that retained credit risk.[i]The final Risk Retention Rule will be effective one year after its publication in the Federal Register for securitizations of residential mortgages, and two years after publication for securitizations of all other asset types. The SEC vote was 3-2, with sharp dissents from Commissioners Gallagher and Piwowar concluding that the adopting agencies had missed a prime opportunity to rein in risky mortgage lending practices that had precipitated the 2008 financial crisis.
Background
Following the meltdown of the securitization markets in 2007 (particularly subprime residential mortgage-backed securities), and the resulting global financial crisis, the Dodd-Frank Act mandated that the U.S. federal banking, securities and housing agencies adopt and implement rules to require sponsors of most new securitizations to retain not less than five percent of the credit risk of any assets that the securitizer, through the issuance of an asset-backed security, transfers, sells or conveys to a third party. It was thought that requiring securitization sponsors to keep “skin in the game” would align the interests of the sponsors with the interests of investors and thereby incentivize the sponsors to ensure the quality of the assets underlying the securitization through appropriate due diligence and underwriting procedures when selecting assets for securitization. Although the Dodd-Frank Act explicitly exempted securitizations of certain types of mortgage loans called “qualified residential mortgages” (or “QRMs”) from this risk retention requirement, it invited the rulemaking agencies to define that key term, provided that their definition could be no broader than the definition of “qualified mortgage”adopted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) pursuant to the Truth in Lending Act.[ii] In considering how to define QRM, the rulemaking agencies were directed by the Dodd-Frank Act to take into consideration “underwriting and product features that historical loan performance data indicate result in a lower risk of default.”[iii]
Reprinted courtesy of
Neil P. Casey, White and Williams LLP and
Lori S. Smith, White and Williams LLP
Mr. Casey may be contacted at caseyn@whiteandwilliams.com; Ms. Smith may be contacted at smithl@whiteandwilliams.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client
January 02, 2019 —
Steven J. Pearse, Esq. & David A. Napper, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerSenate Bill 954: MEDIATION CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLOSURES.
California regards mediation as a beneficial process for parties to resolve disputes in an expeditious and economical fashion. To assure open and candid participation, there is a longstanding policy in California to maintain confidentiality during the mediation process. However, the mediation confidentiality statutes have prevented some clients from suing their·attorneys for alleged malpractice that occurred during the mediation process. (see Cassel v. Superior Court, (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113). Senate Bill ("SB") 954, was recently passed and thereafter approved by the Governor on September 11, 2018 to address this concern.
SB 954, which will amend California Evidence Code section 1122 and add California Evidence Code section 1129, requires that an attorney representing a client participating in a mediation or a mediation consultation provide that client with a written disclosure and acknowledgement containing the mediation confidentiality restrictions as set forth in the California Evidence Code.
This written disclosure and acknowledgement requirement does not apply to class or representative actions. Additionally, the failure of an attorney to follow the new requirement will not be a basis to set aside an agreement prepared in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation. Any communication, document, or writing related to an attorney's compliance with the disclosure requirement will not be considered confidential and may be used in a disciplinary proceeding if the communication, document, or writing does not disclose anything said or done or any admission made in the course of the mediation.
California Evidence Code section 1129 sets forth the exact language that must be used in the disclosure. It even informs the client that all communications between the client and the attorney made in preparation for a mediation, or during a mediation, are confidential and cannot be disclosed or used (except in extremely limited circumstances), even if the client later decides to sue the attorney for malpractice because of something that happens during the mediation.
The new disclosure requirement will allow mediation to maintain the confidentiality that encourages open and candid communications during the process while ensuring that before clients agree to mediation that the clients are made aware of how that confidentiality can potentially impact them. SB 954, will take effect on January 1,2019.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Pearce, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Pearce may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insurer Cannot Abandon Defense Agreement on Underlying Asbestos Claims Against Insured
June 12, 2023 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court found that the insurer continued to be bound by a defense agreement entered with the insured who merged with another company. Continental Ins. Co. v. Neles-Jamesbury, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52521 (D. Mass. March 28, 2023).
In 1990, Neles-Jamesbury became the sucessor by merger to the liabilities of Jamesbury Corp. and Neles, Inc. The companies were both in the business of manufacturing and selling valves.
Continental issued two primary CGL policies to Neles, Inc. from 1986 to 1988. After the merger, Neles-Jamesbury was involved in numerous lawsuits that alleged bodily injury from asbestos exposure. Due to the continuing question of whether the policies created duties for Continental, the parties entered into a 2007 Cost Sharing Agreement, which served to clarify and define their respective obligations and coverage in the lawsuits. The agreement noted that Continental wanted to avoid the expense and uncertainties of litigation over defense obligations.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
