LEEDigation: A Different Take
June 22, 2020 —
Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law MusingsThis weeks Guest Post Friday at Musings is a real treat. Sara Sweeney is a registered architect, LEED AP and GreenFaith Fellow in religious environmental leadership. Her 18-year architectural career reflects her passion and commitment to sustainable building design and stewardship of our natural environment. She is the founder of EcoVision LLC, a solutions-based research and consulting firm, grounded in sustainable design practices, environmental stewardship, and building science.
Dude
Every so often I come across a word that drives me nuts. A few years ago it was ‘Dude.’ Lately, it is ‘LEEDigation.’ It’s a new term to “describe green building litigation” coined by Chris Cheatham, a fine person and very knowledgeable attorney in construction law and a LEED AP as well. Per his definition, LEEDigation “could involve disputes arising from green building certification, could arise if a project fails to obtain government incentives or satisfy mandates for green building construction, or could simply result from improperly designed or constructed green building strategies. It all makes sense. So why does it drive me nuts?
Round Peg. Square Hole.
Although I fully understand why the term was coined, such a term keeps us in flat world, that is, the world of conventional design and construction. Designing and building to LEED standards, or rather, just designing and building sustainably in general, whether to meet a third party standard or not, is a different way than what we have been used to. Period. Whereas our conventional way is focused on first costs, and sees the building more as a commodity than the human imprint and legacy on Earth, sustainable design and building is a process which, at its best, considers the economic impacts of NOT building responsibly. It is a more holistic way of building and balances long-term costs and implications with short term costs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Law Office of Christopher G. HillMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
The Starter Apartment Is Nearly Extinct in San Francisco and New York
October 28, 2015 —
Patrick Clark – BloombergSo you’re looking for a one-bedroom apartment in San Francisco, and you have about $2,000 a month to spend. You know the city’s median rent is more than $4,200 a month, but median means half the apartments cost less. Surely there are larger, more expensive apartments pulling up the midpoint.
Perhaps. But there’s a reason Google employees are sleeping in their trucks.
Ninety-one percent of one-bedroom apartments in San Francisco cost more than $2,000 a month. Perhaps more surprising is the number of apartments that occupy the high end of rental rates: In Manhattan, a fifth of one-bedrooms rent for more than $4,000.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Clark, Bloomberg
Client Alert: Disclosure of Plaintiff’s Status as Undocumented Alien to Prospective Jury Panel Grounds for Mistrial
February 05, 2015 —
R. Bryan Martin, Lawrence S. Zucker II, and Kristian B. Moriarty – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Velasquez v. Centrome, Inc. (No. B247080, filed 1/30/2015) the Court of Appeal, Second District, held that a trial judge’s disclosure to the panel of prospective jurors of plaintiff’s status as an undocumented alien was prejudicial and grounds for a new trial.
Plaintiff, Wilfredo Velasquez, brought suit against defendant, Centrome, Inc., alleging personal injuries related to on-the-job exposure to diacetyl, which was purportedly distributed by Centrome.
Prior to trial, numerous motions in limine were filed with the trial court including a motion brought by Plaintiff to preclude Centrome from referring to or making any comments about Mr. Velasquez’s citizenship or immigration status. Plaintiff contended the information was not relevant (as no loss of earnings claim was asserted), and was substantially more prejudicial than probative. Defendant opposed the Motion arguing the information was relevant for the limited purpose of allowing expert testimony about Mr. Velasquez’s inability as an undocumented alien to participate in a lung transplant he claimed was needed. The Court deferred ruling on the motion.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
R. Bryan Martin,
Lawrence S. Zucker II and
Kristian B. Moriarty
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com;
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com;
and Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Cost of Overlooking Jury Fees
February 07, 2022 —
Nicholas B. Brummel, Arezoo Jamshidi & Lawrence S. Zucker II - Haight Brown & BonesteelOn January 21, 2022, the Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two (Los Angeles), certified for publication a 2-1 decision that serves as an important reminder to California attorneys to post jury fees in a timely manner and to use appropriate channels and consult with appellate counsel in seeking appellate relief from contested rulings.
In TriCoast Builders, Inc. v. Nathaniel Fonnegra, (B303300, Jan. 21, 2022), a construction defect dispute, the trial court set a jury trial at defendant’s request. However, on the day trial was set, defendant waived jury trial. Plaintiff objected and made an oral request for jury trial. The trial court denied the request finding that plaintiff waived its right to a jury trial by failing to timely post jury fees. The matter proceeded to a bench trial, and the court ruled in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appealed, having failed to seek a writ of mandate, which the appellate court noted “is the proper remedy to secure a jury trial allegedly wrongfully withheld.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Nicholas B. Brummel, Haight Brown & Bonesteel,
Arezoo Jamshidi, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Mr. Brummel may be contacted at nbrummel@hbblaw.com
Ms. Jamshidi may be contacted at ajamshidi@hbblaw.com
Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
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
Torrey Pines Court Receives Funding for Renovation
August 06, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFSan Diego Source reported that “CIT Real Estate Finance provided…$60 million…to refinance existing debt and fund the renovations at Torrey Pines Court,” a five-building Class A office campus located in La Jolla, California. The 206,128 square foot complex, which resides on 9.24 acres, is adjacent to the Torrey Pines Golf Course. CIT has funded the project in partnership with Rockwood Capital and The Muller Company.
"We are excited to begin renovations that will complete our repositioning of Torrey Pines Court with state-of-the-art office space and amenities,” David Streicher, Partner at Rockwood Capital, stated according to a press release in the Wall Street Journal. “We expect that the renovations, coupled with the project's picturesque setting, will solidify Torrey Pines Court's position as the preferred office destination in the submarket. We thank CIT for working with us to create a sound financing package that will take this project to the next level."
Read the full story, San Diego Source...
Read the full story, Wall Street Journal... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tidal Lagoon Plans Marine Project to Power Every Home in Wales
March 05, 2015 —
Louise Downing – Bloomberg(Bloomberg) -- Tidal Lagoon Power Ltd., a U.K. marine-energy developer, is planning its second project, a 2.8-gigawatt power plant that will use the tides to generate enough electricity for every home in Wales.
The company submitted an environmental impact assessment for the marine power plant that would use 90 turbines installed between Cardiff and Newport, according to an e-mailed statement Monday. The closely held company expects to submit a full planning application in 2017 and the project may go into operation in 2022.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Louise Downing, BloombergMs. Downing may be contacted at
ldowning4@bloomberg.net
OSHA Updates: You May Be Affected
July 19, 2017 —
Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPGovernor Brown Signs Legislation Increasing Cal/OSHA Fines
Cal/OSHA has increased its maximum fines for the first time in more than twenty years pursuant to legislation recently signed into law by Governor Brown. The changes nearly double the maximum fines and have brought California in line with the Federal standard. The increase in fines will not be isolated to this year, as fines will now be automatically increased annually based on the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U). Additionally, any employer who repeatedly violates any occupational safety or health standard, order, or special order, or Section 25910 of the Health and Safety Code, can no longer receive any adjustment of a penalty assessed based on the good faith or the history of previous violations. Such adjustments were previously commonplace.
Specific increases are listed below (all increases refer to maximum fines, Cal/OSHA has discretion as to the amount of the fine when issuing the citation):
- Section 6427 of the Labor Code was amended to increase fines, not of a serious nature, from $7,000 for each violation to $12,471 for each violation.
- Section 6429 of the Labor Code has increased fines for repeat violations; raising the maximum fine from $70,000 to $124,709 for each violation. Additionally, Section 6429 also raised the minimum fine for repeat violations from $5,000 to $8,908.
- Section 6431 raised fines for posting or recordkeeping violations from $7,000 to $12,471 per violation.
Full text of the penalty section of the labor code may be found
here
California OSHA Emergency Action Plan elements revised; California now more consistent with Federal Standards
Revisions to General Safety Orders section 3220(b) became effective on June 5, 2017 and contain two minor changes for California employers with regards to Emergency Action Plans (EAP).
The first change requires that an employer’s EAP be more detailed in describing the type of evacuation that is to be performed, not just the route for an evacuation. The previous element of the EAP simply required that the plan contain, “[e]mergency escape procedures and emergency escape route assignments.” The current element of the EAP requires that, “[p]rocedures for emergency evacuation, including type of evacuation and exit route assignments,” be identified.
The second change clarifies the language surrounding employees performing rescue or medical duties. Previously the only requirement in the EAP regarding rescue and medical duties was for employees that performed rescue and medical duties. The current version requires that the EAP contain, “[p]rocedures to be followed by employees performing rescue or medical duties. The use of the word and created potential gaps in plans as it is likely that employees may not be performing both rescue and medical duties, instead performing just rescue or medical duties. Plans must now include procedures to be followed by employees who perform either rescue or medical duties.
It is recommended that your EAP be in writing and updated to comply with the revised General Safety Orders section 3220. The full text of General Safety Orders section 3320 can be seen
here. Please contact us if you would like further details regarding your Emergency Action Plan.
Deadline for Electronic Submission of OSHA 300 Log Records for Injuries and Illnesses Delayed
On May 12, 2016, the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a rule entitled “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses” which required certain employers subject to Federal OSHA regulations to submit the information from their completed 2016 Form 300A to OSHA via electronic submission no later than July 1, 2017. On June 28, 2017, OSHA, via a
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, has proposed a December 1, 2017 deadline for the electronic reporting; the electronic reporting system is scheduled to be available on August 1, 2017.
Per the California Department of Industrial Relations, California employers are not required to follow the new requirements and will not be required to do so until "substantially similar" regulations go through formal rulemaking, which would culminate in adoption by the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations and approval by the Office of Administrative Law.
Cal/OSHA drafted a proposed rulemaking package to conform to the revised federal OSHA regulations by amending the California Code of Regulations, title 8, sections 14300.35, 14300.36, and 14300.41; these are currently under review with the State.
It is currently unclear what, if any, impact the delay by OSHA will have on the proposed amendments to the California Code.
We will keep you posted as to the changes in California recordkeeping requirements. Please contact Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer with any questions regarding Cal OSHA or your safety program. Dutch is located at Newmeyer & Dillion’s Newport Beach office and can be reached at dutch.schotemeyer@ndlf.com or by calling 949.271.7208.
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
