NYC Developer Embraces Religion in Search for Condo Sites
October 15, 2014 —
Oshrat Carmiel – BloombergExtell Development Co., the New York builder that set off a luxury residential construction boom with its One57 project, is expanding its reach on Manhattan’s west side with a pending purchase of a synagogue and a plan to redevelop a Baptist church.
Extell is in advanced talks to buy the Congregation Habonim synagogue at 44 W. 66th St. in a deal valued at $75 million, with plans to build condominiums on the site, according to documents the synagogue filed in New York State Supreme Court seeking permission for a sale. Extell also is negotiating with Calvary Baptist Church for a potential project at its 123 W. 57th St. site, on the same block as One57, the church’s 2014 annual report shows.
Religious institutions across New York are pursuing real estate sales as land prices escalate. Manhattan development sites sold for an average of $657 a square foot in the third quarter, up 29 percent from a year earlier and a record for the period, Massey Knakal Realty Services said this month. Three purchases completed in the quarter were for more than $1,000 a square foot, the firm’s data show.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Oshrat Carmiel, BloombergMs. Carmiel may be contacted at
ocarmiel1@bloomberg.net
Three Attorneys Elevated to Partner at Newmeyer & Dillion, LLP
February 26, 2016 —
Newmeyer & Dillion, LLPNewmeyer & Dillion, LLP, a premier business and real estate law firm in California and Nevada, is pleased to announce the promotion of three of its attorneys to partnership.
“Clay Tanaka, Eric Rollins, and Jonathan King have proven their ability to provide the highest quality legal services to our clients while embracing the core values of the Firm which make it unique,” said Jeff Dennis, managing partner of Newmeyer & Dillion. “We are proud to welcome them as our new partners.”
The new partners share extensive legal and trial experience, demonstrating quick and creative solutions for their clients.
Newport Beach
Clayton Tanaka
Clay Tanaka is an experienced trial lawyer practicing in both California and Nevada, focusing on construction, real estate, business, insurance disputes and appellate law. As a licensed civil engineer in California, Clay has extensive knowledge of construction practices as well as vast experience in the designs of both residential subdivisions and commercial developments. He has represented developers and general contractors in numerous complex real estate and construction matters through trial, including disputes involving grading, design, boundary and easement disputes, water intrusion and insurance coverage issues. Clay has also represented a variety of businesses in actions involving breach of contract, fraud, and copyright and trademark infringements. He is also fluent in Japanese.
Eric Rollins
Eric Rollins’ practice focuses on the litigation and arbitration covering a broad range of business, real estate, construction, insurance, and land use disputes. Within the construction arena, he regularly handles complex construction matters and insurance coverage issues arising out of construction claims for both residential and commercial builders. In his business and land practice, Eric has litigated a variety of claims in state and federal courts involving breach of contract, negligence, unfair business practices, fraud, business formation, eminent domain, and inverse condemnation. He has experience with all phases of business litigation, including arbitration, mediation, and trial preparation.
Walnut Creek
Jonathan King
Jonathan King’s practice focuses on the representation of developers, builders, and general contractors in construction litigation and has extensive experience defending personal injury allegations in industrial and construction settings. His business cases include litigation of intellectual property infringement, and general business litigation. Jonathan has successfully resolved and defended complex matters in both mediation and binding arbitration settings. Jonathan also obtains federal trademark protection and negotiates licensing agreements for clients.
About Newmeyer & Dillion LLP
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
Construction Defect Case Not Over, Despite Summary Judgment
November 07, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe Supreme Court of Oregon has concluded in an en banc decision that a motion to reconsider a summary judgment is not a motion for a new trial. In coming to their conclusion the court overturned an earlier Oregon Supreme Court case, Carter v. U.S. National Bank. Although the decision does not bear on construction defects, the underlying case did. Due to the decision, these claims can now be evaluated in a trial.
The case, Association of Unit Owners of Timbercrest Condominiums v. Warren, came about after an apartment complex was converted into condominium units. The developers hired Big Al’s Construction for some of the remodeling work. The condominium association later sued the developer and the contractor over claims of construction defects. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which the court granted.
But that wasn’t the end of things. The plaintiff soon filed a “motion to reconsider,” noting that the summary judgment seemed to be in conflict with both law and other recent rulings, and additionally, the grounds for the decision were not in the order. The judge then notified the parties that the court had “pulled the trigger too quickly” and had seven questions for the parties to answer.
The court dismissed all claims against the defendants. The defendants filed their responses, objecting that that “‘there is no such thing’ as a motion for reconsideration.” Further, while “the rules do allow for post-judgment review of pre-judgment rulings through a motion for a new trial,” the plaintiffs had not filed for a new trial. But did they need one? They did file an appeal.
The judge in the case admitted that there was no such thing as a motion to reconsider, and felt bad about prematurely signing the judgment. The case was sent to the Court of Appeals to determine if the motion to reconsider was a request for a new trial. The Court of Appeals concurred.
In reviewing the decision, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that there were a maximum of three questions to address. Was the motion for reconsideration a motion for a new trial? If so, was the later notice of appeal premature? And if so, was the plaintiff required to file a new appeal? The court determined that the answer to the first question was no.
Prior decisions pointed to the conclusion “that a motion for reconsideration of a summary judgment amounts to a motion for a new trial,” but here the court concluded that “our prior cases erred,” and turned to the summary judgment rule for clarification. The court noted that “the rule contemplates that summary judgment and trial are separate and distinct events.” With this conclusion, the Oregon Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Client Alert: California’s Unfair Competition Law (B&P §17200) Preempted by Federal Workplace Safety Law
September 24, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin, Yvette Davis, & Kristian Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Solus Industrial Innovations LLC v. Superior Court (No. G047661, filed 9/22/2014) (“Solus”) the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code §17200) is preempted by the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (“Fed/OSHA”) because the Unfair Competition law, as approved by the United States Secretary of Labor, does not include any provision for civil enforcement of workplace safety standards by a state prosecutor through a complaint for penalties.
Solus Industrial Innovations, LLC (“Solus”) is a plastics manufacturer. In 2007, Solus installed a residential water heater at its commercial facility in Orange County. The water heater exploded in March 2009, killing two workers. California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) investigated and determined the explosion was caused by a failed safety valve and lack of any proper safety feature on the water heater. Cal/OSHA charged Solus with five violations of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. Because deaths were involved, Cal/OSHA forwarded the results of its investigation to the Orange County District Attorney.
In March 2012, the Orange County District Attorney filed criminal charges against Solus’ plant manager and maintenance supervisor. The District Attorney also filed a civil action against Solus, including two causes of action for violation of California Business & Professions Code §17200 – the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). The action sought civil penalties under the UCL in the amount of $2,500 per day, per employee, from November 29, 2007 through March 19, 2009.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
R. Bryan Martin,
Yvette Davis and
Kristian Moriarty
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com
Ms. Davis may be contacted at ydavis@hbblaw.com
Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability
January 06, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThe federal courts have recently decided two significant Clean Water Act (CWA) cases: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler, where the US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia held that the 2015 rulemaking proceeding of EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers redefining the term “Waters of the United States” in the CWA violated the Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act; and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, et al. v. Glaser, where the appeals court ruled that the lower court erroneously interpreted a CWA NPDES permitting exception involving agricultural return flows.
An Absence of Navigability: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler
Decided on August 21, 2019, the district court, one of the few courts to grapple with the rule’s compliance with the CWA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), held that the agencies’ redefinition of the terms “Interstate Waters,” “Tributaries” and “Adjacent Waters” violated the CWA by reading “navigability” out of the new definitions, or by failing to adhere to the Supreme Court’s rulings in the 2005 case of Rapanos v. United States, in particular Justice Kennedy’s concurrence regarding the application of the “significant nexus” in case-by-case adjudications as to whether a particular body of water was covered by the Act. Moreover, some provisions of the rule conflicted with the APA because they were not a logical outgrowth of the rules proposed by the agencies in 2014, and on which they solicited comments, and other determinations were not supported by a reasonable explanation. In addition, without a clear statement from Congress that it supported the rule’s effect of increasing the nature and extent of enhanced federal jurisdiction over waters subject to the CWA, the court was loathe to approve the rule. Accordingly, the rule was remanded to the agencies for additional review consistent with this decision.
This decision is of particular importance as it may well be the first case to subject this new EPA rule—the linchpin of much of EPA’s regulation under the CWA—to extended review. (Other courts have only been asked to enjoin the rule, which involves a different type of review.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Don MacGregor To Speak at 2011 West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar
January 01, 2011 —
CDJ STAFF“Challenges for Experts in Construction Defect Claims and Litigation” will be held Thursday May 13, 2011 between 1:30 and 3:00 PM at this year’s West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar. Among the various topics covered will be of Right to Repair/Opportunity to Repair statutes, improper testing methodologies, new challenges where a case involves a Wrap Policy, OCIPS, CCIPS, and other owner controlled insurance programs, as well as the need for realistic testing protocols for the party the expert is retained to represent.
During the presentation Mr. MacGregor will be working in connection with a group of construction and design experts each of which have extensive experience with construction defect and claims related litigation. This particular session is expected to attract a standing-room only crowd, drawing in excess of 1700 attendees.
The West Coast Casualty Construction Defect Seminar is the largest seminar of its type. This year’s event is scheduled for will take place on May 12 and 13, 2011, at The Disneyland Hotel and Resort. For more information regarding the years event please visit http://www.westcoastcasualty.com/dyncat.cfm?catid=3322
http://www.westcoastcasualty.com/dyncat.cfm?catid=3322
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Updates to Residential Landlord Tenant Law
October 18, 2021 —
Lawrence S. Glosser - Ahlers, Cressman & SleightOver the past several months, there have been major updates to the residential landlord tenant laws in Washington State and Seattle. There are also some remaining moratoria or eviction restrictions in Washington and Seattle. The following is a general overview of the changes.
Eviction Moratoria:
Washington State
Governor Inslee’s state-wide eviction moratorium technically ended on June 30, 2021. However, in late June 2021, Governor Inslee announced a “bridge” proclamation between the eviction moratorium and the housing stability programs put in place by the Washington State Legislature. The bridge is effective July 1 through September 30. The goal of the bridge period was to protect tenants from evictions for non-payment of rent to allow local governments to set up distribution programs for funds. More than $650 million of federal relief dollars allocated to assist renters was predicted to be available beginning in July. This is in addition to the $500 million previously released by the Department of Commerce to local governments for rental assistance and will help more than 80,000 landlords and renters. However, insofar as many localities have not established distribution protocols, the bridge period was instituted to allow time for those programs to be set up in various parts of the state.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lawrence S. Glosser, Ahlers, Cressman & SleightMr. Glosser may be contacted at
larry.glosser@acslawyers.com
Nevada Assembly Bill Proposes Changes to Construction Defect Litigation
April 14, 2011 —
Beverley BevenFlorez CDJ STAFFAssemblyman John Oceguera has written a bill that would redefine the term Construction Defect, set statutory limitations, and force the prevailing party to pay for attorney’s fees. Assembly Bill 401 has been referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Currently, the law in Nevada states that “a defect in the design, construction, manufacture, repair or landscaping of a new residence, of an alteration of or addition to an existing residence, or of an appurtenance, which is done in violation of law, including in violation of local codes or ordinances, is a constructional defect.” However, AB401 “provides that there is a rebuttable presumption that workmanship which exceeds the standards set forth in the applicable law, including any applicable local codes or ordinances, is not a constructional defect.”
The Nevada courts may award attorney fees to the prevailing party today. However, AB401 mandates that attorney fees must be awarded, and the exact award is to be determined by the Court. “(1) The court shall award to the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees, which must be an element of costs and awarded as costs; and (2) the amount of any attorney’s fees awarded must be determined by and approved by the court.”
AB401 also sets a three year statutory limit “for an action for damages for certain deficiencies, injury or wrongful death caused by a defect in construction if the defect is a result of willful misconduct or was fraudulently concealed.”
This Nevada bill is in the early stages of development.
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
