California Supreme Court Shifts Gears on “Reverse CEQA”
February 23, 2016 —
Garret Murai – California Construction Law BlogThe California Supreme Court has shifted gears on so-called “reverse CEQA” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
The Supreme Court, in a much-anticipated decision, in California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Case No. S213478 (December 17, 2015), held that public agencies subject to CEQA are not required to analyze whether existing environmental conditions may impact a proposed project’s future users or residents – also known as “reverse CEQA” or “CEQA in reverse” – as opposed to the more traditional analysis of a proposed project’s impact on the environment, unless:
1. The proposed project risks exacerbating existing environmental hazards – in which case, it is the proposed project’s impact on the environment not the environment’s impact on the proposed project, which compels the evaluation; or
2. A reverse CEQA analysis is already required under statute, for example, on certain airport, school and housing projects.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
Construction Company Head Pleads Guilty to Insurance and Tax Fraud
December 20, 2012 —
CDJ STAFFThe former head of Orients Construction Company and of Melrose Construciton Company, Herlindo Garcia-Merlos, has entered a guilty plea to charges that the gave false informoation to his insurer, New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Group, for more than three years in order to lower his workers compensation payments. Mr. Garcia-Merlos was able to underpay by more than $315,000 as a result of this deception.
Mr. Garcia-Merlos additionally failed to file tax returns for his companies and underreported his wages on his own tax returns. The State of New Jersey is seeking an eight-year prison term and restitution of more than $400,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Update Regarding New York’s New Registration Requirement for Contractors and Subcontractors Performing Public Works and Covered Private Projects
February 06, 2023 —
Christopher B. Kinzel, K. Greer Kuras, Aaron C. Schlesinger - Peckar & Abramson, P.C.Some significant changes are being made by chapter amendments (S.838 and A.984) to Section 220-i of New York’s Labor Law. Contractors and subcontractors bidding on public contracts and performing work on covered private projects will have two years (by December 30, 2024) to register with the Department of Labor, Bureau of Public Works, rather than one year. The amendments also remove the requirement that a contractor submit registration certificates for all its subcontractors at the time its bid is submitted; amend language with respect to notice and hearing requirements; require re-registration to occur not less than 90 days before expiration; and add language to require a monitor to oversee ongoing work if a contractor or subcontractor is found unfit.
The stated purpose of the law is to help enforce New York’s prevailing wage and other worker protection laws. The DOL will create an online system through which contractors and subcontractors will have to answer questions and submit documents about:
- the business entity and its owners and officers
- unemployment and workers’ compensation insurance
- any outstanding wage assessments
- debarment under New York or federal law, or any other state’s laws
- final determinations of a violation of any labor laws, employment tax laws, or workplace safety standards (including OSHA)
- association or signatory to an apprenticeship program
Reprinted courtesy of
Christopher B. Kinzel, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.,
K. Greer Kuras, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and
Aaron C. Schlesinger, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Kinzel may be contacted at ckinzel@pecklaw.com
Ms. Kuras may be contacted at gkuras@pecklaw.com
Mr. Schlesinger may be contacted at aschlesinger@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Update: Lawyers Can Be Bound to Confidentiality Provision in Settlement Agreement
January 13, 2020 —
Danielle Ward, Esq. - Balestreri Potocki & HolmesIn July 2019, the California Supreme Court ruled that an attorney’s signature under the often-used phrase “approved as to form and content” does not preclude a finding that the attorney could be bound to the terms of a settlement agreement. (Monster Energy Co. v. Schechter (2019) 7 Cal.5th 781.) This decision marks a reversal of the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s 2018 ruling that approval of a contract is not tantamount to an agreement to be bound by that contract.
The underlying action stemmed out of a wrongful death suit by Wendy Crossland and Richard Fournier, parents of the decedent, against Monster Energy Company. The parties negotiated a settlement, a critical of element of which was a confidentiality provision aimed at keeping the the settlement secret.
The confidentiality provision prohibited plaintiffs and their counsel of record from disclosing both the existence of the settlement, or the terms thereof, to any person, entity, or publication, including the legal website Lawyers & Settlements. The attorneys signed the agreement under the phrase “approved as to form and content.”
Shortly after the settlement agreement was executed, the Plaintiffs’ attorney Bruce Schechter disclosed his clients’ settlement with Monster in an interview with Lawyers & Settlements. Monster filed suit against Mr. Schechter for breach of contract, among other causes of action. Mr. Schechter challenged the lawsuit with a SLAPP motion, essentially arguing that the lawsuit was meritless and merely an attempt to thwart freedom of speech.
The trial court denied Mr. Schechter’s motion as to the breach of contract cause of action finding that the settlement clearly contemplated that the attorneys were subjected to the terms of the agreement, and Schechter’s claim that he was not a party because he merely approved as to form and content was “beyond reason.”
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, concluding that Mr. Schechter was not a party to the agreement by virtue of his signature approving the form and content, and the Plaintiffs had no authority to bind their attorney to the terms of the agreement. The Court of Appeal found that by affixing his signature to the agreement Mr. Schechter was merely manifesting his “professional thumbs up” in line with legal industry’s customary understanding.
In its reversal, the California Supreme Court did not disturb the legal community’s understanding of the phrase “approved as to form and content.” Rather, the Court concluded that an attorney’s signature under that often-used phrase does not preclude as a matter of law that the attorney intended to be bound by the agreement. The entire agreement, including the substantive provisions, need to be examined to determine the attorney’s intent in affixing his/her signature to the agreement.
Turning to the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement agreement, the Court was unpersuaded by Mr. Schechter’s argument that he was not bound to the agreement because counsel was not included in the definition of “party”. The Court stated that it’s the substance of the agreement that determines whether counsel is a party to the contract, as opposed to a party to the lawsuit.
The Court was persuaded, in part, by the important role that confidentiality plays in brokering settlements. It noted that public disclosure of private settlements would serve to “chill” parties’ ability to resolve matters short of trial, and there was little doubt that confidentiality was an important term of the Crossland/Fournier Monster settlement. In concluding that Monster had met its burden to defeat an anti-SLAPP motion, the Court pointed to the numerous references to counsel in the substantive provisions of the agreement which a trier of fact could conclude bound Mr. Schechter to the confidentiality terms.
Danielle Ward has concentrated her law practice on defending developer, general contractor, and subcontractor clients in a variety of construction matters. She has been an attorney with Balestreri Potocki & Holmes since 2010 and can be reached at dward@bph-law.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
‘Revamp the Camps’ Cabins Displayed at the CA State Fair
July 30, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThis year, the California State Fair is displaying “four modern, environmentally friendly cabins” as “part of the ‘revamp the camps’ mission by the Forward Parks Commission, California State Parks and 12 architecture graduate students at Cal Poly Pomona,” according to the Sacramento Bee. The commission’s purpose is “to find solutions for the financial, cultural and population changes affecting state parks” including “drawing millennials and urban residents who live far from traditional state parks.”
Guidelines stated that the cabins “had to be portable, accessible to the physically disabled and made from sustainable materials.” Furthermore the cabins had to be under $15,000 each, have no running water or electricity, and “[y]et the design had to appeal to a younger market.”
“After a review of the surveys and recommendations from the Parks Forward Commission, the hope is to place the prototypes in state parks for public use,” the Sacramento Bee reported.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Constructive Notice Established as Obstacle to Relation Back Doctrine
March 01, 2021 —
Nicholas B. Brummel & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso v. City of San Jose, the Sixth Appellate District held that the relation back doctrine was inapplicable where a plaintiff received constructive notice of a defendant’s identity months prior to the last date where filing was permitted pursuant to an applicable statute of limitations.
In Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso, Mark Espinoza, an Organizacion Comunidad de Alviso (OCA/Plaintiff) representative, asked the City of San Jose (“the city”) to place him on the public notice list for a proposed rezoning project. He also twice specifically requested a copy of the notice of determination (NOD) documenting the city’s certification of an environmental impact report (EIR) and approval of the project. Despite Espinoza diligently requesting all notices for the project, the city, in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), failed to send Espinoza the legally operative second NOD for the project; the first NOD was provided to OCA, but named an incorrect party in interest.
Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas B. Brummel, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Brummel may be contacted at nbrummel@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Meet the Forum's In-House Counsel: ERIN CANNON-WELLS
June 26, 2023 —
Jessica Knox - The Dispute ResolverCompany: Keller North America, Inc.
Email: ecannon@keller-na.com
Website: https://www.keller-na.com/
Under Grad: University of Delaware (Bachelor of Civil Engineering 2000)
Grad School: The University of Texas (Master of Civil Engineering 2002)
Law School: Howard University (JD 2008)
States Where Company Operates/Does Business: Throughout the US and Canada
Q: Describe your background and the path you took to becoming in-house counsel.
A: I studied civil engineering in undergrad and finally found my "calling" when I took a construction course, prompting me to pursue a master's in construction engineering. I started my career at Turner, holding various engineering positions, the last of which introduced me to the "contracting" side of construction. I was inspired to go to law school (in hopes of becoming an in-house lawyer there). After law school, I joined BigLaw, but maintained my desire to practice construction law. I then jumped to a small construction practice group at a mid-size firm, and the mentoring and experience there was everything I could hope for (but for the looming business development and billable hour requirements). From there, I became the sole in-house counsel for a large cement manufacturer and was a true construction generalist. Now I am part of a great legal team for a leading geotechnical specialty contractor. My moves were strategic, and I'm pleased to say that this is the very career I went to law school to have.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jessica Knox, Stinson LLPMs. Knox may be contacted at
jessica.knox@stinson.com
Litigation Privilege Saves the Day for Mechanic’s Liens
November 23, 2020 —
Stephen M. Tye & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & BonesteelIn RGC Gaslamp v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co., the Fourth Appellate District held that a trial court properly granted an anti-SLAPP motion because the recording of a mechanic’s lien is protected by the litigation privilege.
In RGC Gaslamp, subcontractor Ehmcke Sheet Metal Company (“Ehmcke”) recorded a mechanic’s lien to recoup payment due for sheet metal fabrication and installation done at a luxury hotel project in downtown San Diego. Project owner RGC Gaslamp, LLC (“RGC”) recorded a release bond for the lien. Thereafter, Ehmcke recorded three successive mechanic’s liens identical to the first, prompting RGC to sue it for quiet title, slander of title, and declaratory and injunctive relief. After retaining California counsel, Ehmcke then released its liens and advised it did not intend to record any more. Ehmcke then filed a special motion to strike under the anti-SLAPP statute (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.16.) which was granted.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen M. Tye, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Tye may be contacted at stye@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
