US Supreme Court Orders All Mountain Valley Gas Line Work to Proceed
August 14, 2023 —
Debra K. Rubin - Engineering News-RecordIn a ruling without explanation in response to an emergency appeal by the project developer, the U.S. Supreme Court on July 27 said work to complete the Mountain Valley gas pipeline can proceed. The decision follows an order earlier this month by the Richmond, Va., appeals court to halt restart of work on the much-litigated and delayed $6.6-billion, 303-mile natural gas pipeline in Virginia and West Virginia, after new lawsuits filed by opponent groups.
Reprinted courtesy of
Debra K. Rubin, Engineering News-Record
Ms. Rubin may be contacted at rubind@enr.com
Read the full story... Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
140 Days Until The California Consumer Privacy Act Becomes Law - Why Aren't More Businesses Complying?
September 09, 2019 —
Kyle Janecek and Jeff Dennis – Newmeyer DillionCalifornia, for better or for worse, has a reputation as being a trendsetter, and has taken the lead in the United States by passing the "California Consumer Privacy Act," or "CCPA." This massive law has been on the books since 2018, but hasn't taken effect yet. However, the timeframe for businesses to be in compliance is rapidly diminishing. Currently, there are less than five months for businesses to (a) familiarize themselves with what the law requires; (b) determine how and if they are affected by the law; and (c) determine how to be in compliance with the law's demands. Right now, companies aren't making a rush to become CCPA compliant, but this is a mistake. Below are a few of the misconceptions that businesses have, as well as the realities.
MISCONCEPTION 1: It doesn't apply to my company.
For many businesses, it will apply. The baseline of the CCPA is: (1) does the business do anything with California residents (including employees); (2) is it for-profit; and (3) it either has $25 million annual revenue, "sells" 50,000 pieces of personal information or receives 50% or more of its revenue from personal information.
It does not matter if the business is in Nevada, Arizona, Texas or Delaware. So long as there is some connection to Californian residents, exists to make a profit, and otherwise satisfies either the profit, volume, or revenue percentage requirements, it applies. On that note, even if a business does not sell personal information, it does not mean it does not "sell" personal information under the law, as it includes any exchange of personal information for valuable consideration, such as the exchange of consumer data between companies, or the sale of information to a University for study.
MISCONCEPTION 2: The Federal Government will stop it.
One of the main reasons we have the CCPA is because the Federal Government has not acted on this issue. Furthermore, there is a high likelihood that any Federal law will not be substantially different from the CCPA, keeping the core principles in place. It's also unlikely that such a law will take effect and be passed in the remaining five months before the CCPA begins enforcement. Companies must accept that ideals of transparency, choice, consent and reasonable security as they relate to consumers' personal information are here to stay.
MISCONCEPTION 3: California is still changing the law, so I should wait.
California is still in the process of fine-tuning the CCPA, but this is no reason to wait. Fixes to questions arising regarding the CCPA have come out piecemeal, and continued changes, including expansions are likely. For example, employees were previously not addressed specifically within the CCPA, but are being addressed in the planned AB 25, excluding employees from some of the CCPA's protections. Conversely, there have also been planned provisions to expand on the protections and enforcement mechanisms of the CCPA, including a broad and expansive private right of action to permit individuals to sue for technical violations of the statute, like having to wait too long for a response to the demand, even if no actual damage is suffered. Again, the foundational requirements of the CCPA will not change via amendment – so companies should act now.
MISCONCEPTION 4: It's too expensive.
Actually no. Many of the basic actions are not cost-prohibitive, and are actions a business would want to do anyways: (a) Employee training to avoid data breaches and how to respond to user requests; (b) data mapping to quickly find, access, and arrange protections for consumer data; and (c) ensuring you have reasonable cyber security. This can even be turned into a competitive advantage, as consumers increasingly value companies that share their interests, including their privacy.
A compliance mistake could be extraordinarily costly. Currently, a violation for statutory violations of the CCPA can carry a penalty between $2,500 to $7,500 per individual violation. Furthermore, there is a private right of action with statutory damages of $100 to $750 per individual violation that could quickly balloon to exceed $5 million at a minimum, and invites class action/lawsuits for a data breach.
While this is true of almost every legal risk, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The penalties on the higher end of the spectrum are for willful violations, and attempts to comply with the law can act to curb potential risks.
What Should I Do?
If you feel CCPA compliance is important to your business, and decide to prepare for the CCPA with us, our firm has created a 90-day CCPA compliance program where our team will collaborate with you to determine a scalable, practical, and reasonable way for you to meet your needs, without breaking the bank. Let us provide you a free initial consultation to see if our CCPA compliance program works for you.
Kyle Janecek is an associate in the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice, and supports the team in advising clients on cyber related matters, including policies and procedures that can protect their day-to-day operations. For more information on how Kyle can help, contact him at kyle.janecek@ndlf.com.
Jeff Dennis is the head of the firm's Privacy & Data Security practice. Jeff works with the firm's clients on cyber-related issues, including contractual and insurance opportunities to lessen their risk. For more information on how Jeff can help, contact him at jeff.dennis@ndlf.com.
About Newmeyer Dillion
For 35 years, Newmeyer Dillion has delivered creative and outstanding legal solutions and trial results that align with the business objectives of clients in diverse industries. With over 70 attorneys working as an integrated team to represent clients in all aspects of business, employment, real estate, privacy & data security and insurance law, Newmeyer Dillion delivers tailored legal services to propel clients' business growth. 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 Nevada, and have been given Martindale-Hubbell Peer Review's AV Preeminent® highest rating. For additional information, call 949.854.7000 or visit www.newmeyerdillion.com.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Withdrawal of an Admission in California May Shift Costs—Including Attorneys’ Fees—Incurred in Connection with the Withdrawal
January 24, 2018 —
Tony Carucci – Real Estate Litigation BlogUnder California Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.300, a court may permit a party to withdraw an admission made in response to a request for admission upon noticed motion. The court may only do so, however, “if it determines that the admission was the result of mistake, inadvertence, or excusable neglect, and that the party who obtained the admission will not be substantially prejudiced in maintaining that party’s action or defense on the merits.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(b). The court may also “impose conditions on the granting of the motion that are just, including, but not limited to . . . (2) An order that the costs of any additional discovery be borne in whole or in part by the party withdrawing or amending the admission.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 2033.300(c).
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tony Carucci, Snell & WilmerMr. Carucci may be contacted at
acarucci@swlaw.com
Toolbox Talk Series Recap - Guided Choice Mediation
November 05, 2024 —
Douglas J. Mackin - The Dispute ResolverIn the September 26, 2024 edition of Division 1's Toolbox Talk Series,
Clifford Shapiro presented on Guided Choice Mediation (“GCM”) and how it can lead to better outcomes in construction disputes.
GCM is an approach to mediation that focuses on early and efficient dispute resolution, which prominent mediators created as a public interest project.
Shapiro described his particular variant of GCM based on his experience while acknowledging that other Guided Choice Mediators’ processes may differ from his in various ways. Shapiro’s brand of GCM focuses on ensuring that parties have reasonable expectations and appropriate settlement authority prior to arriving at a mediation. Some of the strategies to help accomplish these noble goals are (i) early mediator engagement, (ii) mediator facilitation of information exchange, (iii) mediator involvement with insurance issues (particularly important in construction defect cases, especially those with multiple defendants), (iii) pre-mediation ex parte meetings, and (iv) mediator participation in risk analysis. These strategies are not typical in the more traditional/historic approach to mediation in which mediation is scheduled based on a scheduling order, mediation statements are sent to the mediator roughly a week before the scheduled mediation (and sometimes not even shared with anyone other than the mediator), and the parties speak with the mediator for the first time on the day of the mediation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’ConnorMr. Mackin may be contacted at
dmackin@cozen.com
Hurdles with Triggering a Subcontractor Performance Bond
April 05, 2017 —
David Adelstein – Florida Construction Legal UpdatesThere have been a couple of decisions as of late, particularly in federal court, that have gone in favor of a performance bond surety and against a general contractor’s claim against a subcontractor’s performance bond. These decisions have been so unfavorable that they may be swaying certain internal decisions to move to subcontractor default insurance with, perhaps, subcontractors that pose less risk. From the general contractor’s perspective, if they have to stop the management of the job and progress to jump through hoops to trigger the performance bond’s obligations, rightfully or wrongfully, the bond may not provide them the value they need. Performance bonds are an appropriate product in many instances, but there should be more consistency regarding the actual trigger of a subcontractor’s performance bond obligations. Project teams need to absolutely understand what efforts they need to take, and how they need to take such efforts, in order to properly trigger a performance bond’s obligations. This is a must (and I have presented many seminars on this very issue). Or, the general contractor should move away from the traditional AIA /standard performance bond form, which is the direction I always go when I am involved in the drafting of a performance bond.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Florida Construction Legal UpdatesMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dadelstein@gmail.com
Conn. Appellate Court Overturns Jury Verdict, Holding Plaintiff’s Sole Remedy for Injuries Arising From Open Manhole Was State’s Highway Defect Statute
June 14, 2021 —
Christy Jachimowski - Lewis BrisboisSection 13a-149 of the Connecticut General Statutes, commonly known as Connecticut’s highway defect statute, provides that claims arising from injuries or damages to people or property resulting from a defective road or bridge can be asserted against a party responsible for maintaining that road or bridge. Conn. Gen. Stat. §13a-149. The statute also extends to sidewalks and further provides that written notice of an alleged injury must be given to a defendant municipality within ninety days of the injury.
Recently, in Dobie v. City of New Haven, 2021 Conn. App. LEXIS 162 (App. Ct. May 1, 2021), the Connecticut Appellate Court overturned the trial court’s denial of a municipal defendant’s post-trial motion to dismiss. The court held that even though the plaintiff attempted to assert allegations of negligence against the defendant municipality, Connecticut’s highway defect statute was the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy. Since the plaintiff failed to meet the requisite notice requirements, pursuant to the statute, the Appellate Court held that the trial court erred in denying the municipality’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Underlying Case
In February of 2013, Plaintiff William Dobie filed suit against the City of New Haven alleging injuries and damages as a result of the negligence of a City of New Haven snowplow operator. Dobie’s claims arose from an incident that occurred on January 21, 2011, in which he was driving behind the City snowplow driver, who was in the process of plowing snow from a municipal street located in New Haven, Connecticut. As the defendant employee was operating his snowplow, he knocked off a manhole cover, causing Dobie’s vehicle to drive over the open manhole. Dobie claimed personal injuries as a result of his vehicle dropping into the open manhole, including injuries to his jaw.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Christy Jachimowski, Lewis BrisboisMs. Jachimowski may be contacted at
Christy.Jachimowski@lewisbrisbois.com
Texas Supreme Court Defines ‘Plaintiff’ in 3rd-Party Claims Against Design Professionals
September 10, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFAccording to attorney Matthew J. Mussalli, writing in Texas Lawyer, “In Jaster v. Comet II Construction on July 3, the Texas Supreme Court ruled how to construe the term ‘plaintiff’ in the context of claims against design professionals and under what circumstances a Certificate of Merit (COM) is required.”
Mussalli explained that “the court narrowly construed the relevant statute contained in Chapter 150 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code and held that the plaintiff is just that—the plaintiff; not a defendant/third-party plaintiff nor a cross-claimant. Accordingly, builders, contractors and others who find themselves in the position of defending breach of contract, negligence or other claims and who seek to implead design professionals, need not file a COM with their third-party petitions or cross-claims against architects, engineers or other design professionals.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lewis Brisbois Ranks Among Top 25 Firms on NLJ’s 2021 Women in Law Scorecard
July 25, 2021 —
Jana Lubert - Lewis BrisboisLewis Brisbois has been ranked among the top 25 law firms included in the National Law Journal's (NLJ) 2021 Women in Law Scorecard (Women’s Scorecard), moving up from 27th place to 23rd place this year. In addition, of the top 25 firms in the Women’s Scorecard, Lewis Brisbois had the highest number of female minority partners.
The Women’s Scorecard is produced as part of the annual NLJ 500 firm head count report, and only the largest 350 firms are eligible to be included on the scorecard. A firm’s score is determined by adding the percentage of female attorneys and percentage of female partners. Diversity staffing counts were based on a firm’s average full-time attorneys in 2020, excluding contract and temporary attorneys.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jana Lubert, Lewis BrisboisMs. Lubert may be contacted at
Jana.Lubert@lewisbrisbois.com
