Newmeyer & Dillion Partner Aaron Lovaas & Casey Quinn Recognized by Super Lawyers
July 21, 2018 —
Newmeyer & DillionLAS VEGAS, Nev. – JUNE 11, 2018 – Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that partner
Aaron Lovaas has been selected to the 2018 Mountain States Super Lawyers list, and associate
Casey Quinn has been selected to the 2018 Mountain States Rising Stars list by Super Lawyers. Each year, no more than 5 percent of lawyers are named to a Super Lawyers list and less than 2.5 percent are named to the Rising Stars list. This is the 9th consecutive year Lovaas has been honored, while Quinn has been consistently selected as a Rising Star honoree in prior years.
Aaron Lovaas is a partner in the Las Vegas office. As a transactional attorney and business litigator, Lovaas has the ability to evaluate legal issues from both points of view and help his clients understand their best option. He also brings to the table experience as a business owner, having owned and managed his own boutique law firm for 12 years.
Casey Quinn, an associate in the Las Vegas office, focuses his practice in complex commercial and construction litigation. He represents a variety of business entities in commercial disputes, including contract claims, business torts, privacy lawsuits, defamation, and fraud. Quinn is a past chair of the Construction Law section of the State Bar of Nevada and has successfully argued before the Supreme Court of Nevada, as well as settled disputes through various forms of conflict resolution including mediation and arbitration.
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 includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.
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
Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: KATE GOLDEN
February 19, 2024 —
Jessica Knox - The Dispute ResolverCompany: Mortenson
Email: kate.golden@mortenson.com
Website: www.mortenson.com
College: University of Iowa (Bachelor of Science in Engineering, 1991)
Graduate School: University of Minnesota (Master of Science in Civil Engineering, 1994)
Law School: William Mitchell College of Law (now Mitchell | Hamline School of Law) (JD 1999)
States Where Company Operates/Does Business: Mortenson is a national builder and developer with 13 regional office locations.
Q: Describe your background and the path you took to becoming in-house counsel.
A: In high school, I loved math and science, so I attended the University of Iowa College of Engineering and studied civil engineering, with a focus on environmental engineering. To practice environmental engineering at that time, you generally needed a master’s degree, so I attended the University of Minnesota, where my thesis for my degree program was “Organochlorines in Lake Michigan.” I then worked as an environmental engineer for a consulting firm called Montgomery Watson (now MWH) assisting clients with various environmental issues from air permitting to watershed reports to risk assessments of contaminated sites.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jessica Knox, Stinson LLPMs. Knox may be contacted at
jessica.knox@stinson.com
Supreme Court Upholds Prevailing Wage Statute
August 19, 2024 —
Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLCHistorically, the prevailing wage was calculated by averaging the wages within a certain industry and county. However, in 2018 the Washington Legislature amended the statute so that the prevailing wage would be assessed based on the highest wage set by collective bargaining agreements in the county. The amendment (RCW 39.12.015(3)) reads as follows:
(3)(a)…the industrial statistician shall establish the prevailing rate of wage by adopting the hourly wage, usual benefits, and overtime paid for the geographic jurisdiction established in collective bargaining agreements…
(b) For trades and occupations in which there are no collective bargaining agreements in the county, the industrial statistician shall establish the prevailing rate of wage by…conducting wage and hour surveys.
So, for example, if union engineers bargain for a wage, that is the wage all engineers in the county must be paid on public projects. The legislature passed this law for the sake of efficiency because it took significant resources for the Industrial Statistician to compute the prevailing wage for every trade and every county, but the law has significant knock-on effects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Ahlers Cressman & Sleight PLLC
Appeals Court Upholds Decision by Referee in Trial Court for Antagan v Shea Homes
May 10, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFIn the case Antangan v. Shea Homes Ltd. Partnership (Cal. App., 2012), Plaintiffs appealed “an order vacating a judgment and entering a modified judgment in their construction defect action against defendants Shea Homes, Inc. and Shea Homes Limited Partnership,” while the Defendant, Shea Homes Limited Partnership (Shea Homes) appealed “an order of the judicial referee denying its motion to strike and tax costs.”
On the Antagon issue, the appeals court concluded that “the trial court did not err by vacating and modifying its judgment so that the cost of referee’s fees would be equally divided by the parties and consistent with a prior stipulation they filed in court.”
On the Shea Homes issue, the appeals court concluded: “1) the judicial referee did not err by ruling that plaintiffs’ offers to compromise (§ 998) were validly served on Shea Homes’ counsel, 2) the offers substantially complied with statutory requirements, 3) the offers were not required to be apportioned, and 4) the referee’s award of $5,000 as costs for a person assisting plaintiffs’ counsel was not an abuse of discretion.” The appeals court affirmed the judgment.
Here is a brief history of the trial case: “Plaintiffs Chito Antangan, Jimmy Alcova and other homeowners brought an action against defendants Shea Homes, Inc. and Shea Homes Limited Partnership for damages alleging that the properties they purchased from these ‘developer defendants’ were defective. Plaintiffs claimed numerous construction defects required them ‘to incur expenses’ for ‘restoration and repairs’ and the value of their homes had been diminished.”
In response, Shea Homes filed a motion for an order to appoint a judicial referee. The motion was granted and it was ruled that “a referee would ‘try all issues’ and ‘report a statement of decision to this court.’”
On May 10, 2010 the judicial referee (Thompson) “awarded plaintiffs damages and various costs, and ruled that ‘Shea Homes shall bear all of the Referee’s fees.’” The latter ruling would become a matter for contention later on.
In July of 2010, the plaintiffs “sought, among other things, $54,409.90 for expert fees, and $14,812.50 for the services of Melissa Fox for ‘exhibit preparation & trial presentation.’ Shea Homes filed a motion to strike and/or tax costs claiming: 1) Fox was a paralegal, 2) plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney’s fees, and 3) the fees for Fox’s services were an indirect and improper method to obtain attorney’s fees. The referee disagreed and awarded $5,000 for Fox’s services. The referee also ruled that plaintiffs had properly served valid offers to compromise (§ 998) on Shea Homes’ counsel in 2009. He said those offers to defendants in the case at that time did not have to be apportioned.”
“Antangan contends the trial court erred when it vacated and modified its original judgment, which ordered Shea Homes to pay all the referee’s fees. We disagree.”
Antagon contended that the trial court erred when it vacated and modified its original judgment regarding Shea Homes paying the referee’s fees. The appeals court disagreed: “A trial court has inherent authority to vacate or correct a judgment that is void on its face, incorrect, or entered by mistake. (§ 473; Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co. (1998),67 Cal.App.4th 1228; Olivera
Read the court’s decision…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
When to Withhold Retention Payments on Private or Public Projects
August 29, 2018 —
Nicholas Karkazis - Gordon & Rees Construction Law BlogTo ensure that construction contractors and subcontractors receive timely progress and retention payments, the California Legislature enacted statutes that impose deadlines and penalties on owners and direct (general) contractors who delay payments. (Cal. Civ. Code, §§ 8800, 8802, 8812, 8814; Pub. Contract Code, §§ 7107, 10262.5; Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7108.5.) However, there is an exception to these deadlines and penalties on both private and public projects. The exception allows an owner or direct contractor to withhold payment1 when there is a good faith dispute between an owner and a direct contractor or between a direct contractor and a subcontractor. (Civ. Code, §§ 8800, subd. (b), 8802, subd. (b), 8812, subd. (c), 8814, subd. (c); Pub. Contract Code, §§ 7107, subds. (c), (e), 10262.5, subd. (a); Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7108.5, subd. (a).)
But the term “good faith dispute” has been a source of confusion where direct contractors owe subcontractors retention payments, but want to withhold the payment because of a dispute.2 California appellate courts were split, with one court finding that any type of bona fide dispute justified withholding, and another finding that only disputes related to the payment itself justified withholding. (Compare Martin Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Thompson Pacific Construction, Inc. (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1401 [any bona fide dispute could justify withholding] with East West Bank v. Rio School Dist. (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 742 [disputes related to the payment itself may justify withholding].) In May 2018, the California Supreme Court clarified that for a direct contractor to withhold a retention payment on a private project, the good faith dispute must somehow relate to the payment itself. (United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co. (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1082, 1097-1098.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas Karkazis, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMr. Karkazis may be contacted at
nkarkazis@grsm.com
Climate Change a Factor in 'Unprecedented' South Asia Floods
July 18, 2022 —
The Associated Press (Aniruddha Ghosal & Al-Emrun Garjon) - BloombergSylhet, Bangladesh (AP) -- Scientists say climate change is a factor behind the erratic and early rains that triggered unprecedented floods in Bangladesh and northeastern India, killing dozens and making lives miserable for millions of others.
Although the region is no stranger to flooding, it typically takes place later in the year when monsoon rains are well underway.
This year's torrential rainfall lashed the area as early as March. It may take much longer to determine the extent to which climate change played a role in the floods, but scientists say that it has made the monsoon — a seasonable change in weather usually associated with strong rains — more variable over the past decades. This means that much of the rain expected to fall in a year is arriving in a space of weeks.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bloomberg
Court Strikes Down Reasonable Construction Defect Settlement
December 20, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Court of Appeals of Washington has struck down a construction defect settlement between a building owner and the companies she hired to repair the siding, among other repairs to bring the building up to code. Yuan Zhang hired Hawk Construction LLC to do repair work. Hawk, in turn, hired Ready Construction LLC for some aspects of the project. Hawk and Ready were both insured by Capital Specialty Insurance Corporation.
There were several problems with Ready’s work. After removing old siding, they did not protect the building, nor did they remove all of the damaged layers. Ready covered, but did not fix, a mildew problem under the old siding. When new siding was reattached, the nails used were too short to adequately attach it.
After paying for an inspection of the work, Zhang had Hawk and Ready begin the repairs again, but the work was abandoned without being completed. Zhang sued Hawk for breach of contract. Hawk then sued Ready, claiming that “Ready was liable to Hawk to the extent that Hawk was liable to Zhang.” Capitol retained defense for both contractors.
Zhang settled with Hawk, in an agreement that gave her “the right to collect and/or pursue all costs and attorney fees paid by Hawk or its insurance company defending against the Zhang’s claims and pursuing claims against Ready.” Subsequently, she also settled with Ready. Both companies ceased operations.
Zhang had the settlements reviewed by a court, which concluded that the settlements were reasonable. Capital was allowed to appeal, claiming that the settlement included costs that were Zhang’s responsibility. The appeals court did not examine the question of the reasonableness of the settlement, concluding that Capitol’s interests were relevant only to “questions of bad faith, collusion, and fraud.”
In the case of Zhang, the court concluded that the relationship between Zhang and her former contractors was collusive. The court noted that “bad faith or collusion may exist when the evidence indicates a joint effort to create, in a non-adversarial atmosphere, a resolution beneficial to both parties, yet highly prejudicial to the insurer as intervener.” The court noted that both companies had minimal assets which were, in any case, exempted from the agreement. Further, the court found that the agreements failed to determine “what amount of the repairs related to preexisting water damage.” Zhang’s calculation of costs also included her expenses for architectural and engineering services, which the court points out, “where always Zhang’s costs to bear.”
The court concluded that “the overall structure of the settlements is highly probative of collusion, fraud, or bad faith.” Zhang’s agreements with Hawk and Ready allowed her to collect compensation from Hawk and then collect Ready’s compensation to Hawk for their portion of the settlement, allowing Zhang to collect the monies twice. Further, she was allowed to pursue Capitol for Hawk’s attorney expenses, even though Hawk had none. “The right to recover Hawk’s fees merely set up a windfall recovery for Zhang.” The court described the agreements among Zhang, Hawk, and Ready as “precisely the type of manipulation [the law] is intended to preclude.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
OSHA Joins the EEOC in Analyzing Unsafe Construction Environments
June 26, 2023 —
Cameron S. Hill Sr. - Construction ExecutiveConsistent with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
published in January 2023, which noted an increased focus on the construction industry as it relates to harassment and discrimination issues within the workplace and around hiring and the advancement of minorities, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is following suit. At the end of March 2023, OSHA leaders announced another arrow in their quiver: OSHA has new authority through its Wage and Hour Division to issue certifications supporting applications for "U" nonimmigrant status and "T" nonimmigrant status visas.
Reasoning that workers' immigration status, social inequalities or differences in culture can cause them to fear retaliation for identifying unsafe work environments and criminal activity, such as trafficking, murder, blackmail, extortion and other serious crimes, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, Doug Parker
stated, "The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's top priority is to ensure workers are safe and can exercise their rights, regardless of their demographic or immigration status. A key part of that mission is expanding our work to combat workplace inequities that can create hazards and affect vulnerable workers who are likely to be exploited or victims of crimes. Our vision extends beyond setting standards, inspecting workplaces and providing training. Becoming a visa-certifying agency gives us one more tool in our wide-ranging efforts to better protect workers and their rights on the job."
Reprinted courtesy of
Cameron S. Hill Sr., Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chill@bakerdonelson.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
