Cambridge Massachusetts Building Expert Directory

A WARNing for Companies

March 13, 2023 — Abby M. Warren & Sapna Jain - Construction Executive
Since last fall, news of layoffs in the technology sector have set off a ripple effect in a variety of other industries. Companies engaging in layoffs must be thoughtful and prepared when it comes to taking such action. While the construction industry generally has one of the highest layoff rates, and human resource personnel may be very knowledgeable with regard to related risks and exposure, there are a number of additional issues to consider when there are mass layoffs or closings. Further, expensive litigation awaits if companies are not meticulous in complying with state and federal laws regarding such large scale reductions in force. Under federal law, the primary legislation governing mass layoffs and closing is the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act which generally covers employers with 100 or more employees. This law was enacted to protect employees by requiring companies to provide 60 days’ notice to employees in advance of certain plant closings and mass layoffs. In addition, many states, such as California, Connecticut and New York, have enacted similar state laws, referred to as “mini-WARN” laws, which impose additional requirements, including increasing the length of the required advance notice and broadening the scope of employers to which the law applies. Reprinted courtesy of Abby M. Warren and Sapna Jain, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Ninth Circuit Clears the Way for Review of Oregon District Court’s Rulings in Controversial Climate Change Case

February 27, 2019 — Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2Gavel
On December 26, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit accepted an interlocutory appeal of the presiding District Court’s pre-trial rulings in the novel climate change case that is being tried in Oregon. The case is Juliana, et al. v. United States of America. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court certification of this case for interlocutory appeal satisfied the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Ninth Circuit precedents authorize such an appeal when a District Court order “involves a controlling question of law as to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion”—which aptly characterizes the U.S. Supreme Court’s view of this litigation. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Anthony B. Cavender, Pillsbury
Mr. Cavender may be contacted at anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com

Senate Bill 15-091 Passes Out of the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee

March 19, 2015 — David M. McClain – Colorado Construction Litigation
As previously reported, Senator Scott's SB 91, as originally introduced, would have reduced Colorado's statute of repose for construction defect actions from eight years to four years. Yesterday, the Senate State, Veterans & Military Affairs Committee heard Senate Bill 91 and, before passing the bill on a party line vote sending it back to the full Senate for consideration, made two substantive amendments. By one amendment, the Committee excluded any multi-family developments. The second amendment was to reduce the statute of repose from six years, currently on the books, to five years plus one more if the defect becomes manifest in the fifth year. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

CSLB Releases New Forms and Announces New Fees!

April 05, 2017 — Garret Murai – California Construction Law Blog
The California Contractors State License Board (CSLB”) has issued new application forms. Effective May 1, 2017, the CSLB will only accept forms with a revision date of October 2017 (Pro tip: see bottom of form to verify it indicates a revision date of “10/16” or later). Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@wendel.com

Arbitration: For Whom the Statute of Limitations Does Not Toll in Pennsylvania

June 03, 2019 — Gus Sara - The Subrogation Strategist
In Morse v. Fisher Asset Management, LLC, 2019 Pa. Super. 78, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania considered whether the plaintiff’s action was stayed when the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint after sustaining the defendants’ preliminary objections seeking enforcement of an arbitration clause in the contract at issue. The Superior Court—distinguishing between a defendant who files a motion to compel arbitration and a defendant who files preliminary objections based on an arbitration clause—held that, in the latter scenario, if the defendant’s preliminary objections are sustained, the statute of limitations is not tolled. This case establishes that, in Pennsylvania, plaintiffs seeking to defeat a challenge to a lawsuit based on a purported agreement to arbitrate need to pay close attention to the type of motion the defendant files to defeat the plaintiff’s lawsuit. In Morse, the plaintiff entered into a contract with Fisher Asset Management (Fisher) in 2008 for investment-advisor services. The contract included a provision stating that any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of the agreement between the parties shall be determined by arbitration. In June 2009, the plaintiff filed a complaint against Fisher and two of its employees in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, negligence, and other claims. The defendants filed preliminary objections to the complaint seeking dismissal on grounds that the contract between the plaintiff and Fisher required that the dispute be determined by arbitration. The court sustained the preliminary objections and dismissed the complaint. The plaintiff did not appeal the court’s ruling. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gus Sara, White and Williams
Mr. Sara may be contacted at sarag@whiteandwilliams.com

Mountain States Super Lawyers 2019 Recognizes 21 Nevada Snell & Wilmer Attorneys

June 18, 2019 — Snell & Wilmer
Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that 21 attorneys from the Nevada offices have been selected for inclusion in the 2019 Mountain States Super Lawyers publication. Of those 21, 12 were recognized as Mountain States Rising Stars. Patrick Byrne was also named to the Top 100 list of attorneys for the Mountain States region. Super Lawyers, part of Thomson Reuters, is a listing of lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

New Jersey Law Firm Sued for Malpractice in Construction Defect Litigation

July 23, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Berman Sauter Record & Jardim PC are facing a New Jersey state legal malpractice suit. According to Law 360, condominium associations claimed the law firm “didn't properly name subcontractors as defendants in the associations' complaint over various construction defects, thus blocking them from obtaining damages despite a $1.2 million settlement.” Law 360 reported that the “suit seeks compensatory damages, with interest and costs; reimbursement of attorneys' fees and litigation costs and expenses for both the instant and underlying complaints; and further relief.” The law firm is no longer active, according to Law 360. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

Nevada Supreme Court Declares Subcontractor Not Required to Provide Pre-Litigation Notice to Supplier

September 24, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
According to the Traub Lieberman Straus & Shrewsberry LLP blog on Construction Law, even though the Nevada Revised Statutes Annotated (NRS) Chapter 40 requires a general contractor “to provide pre-litigation notice (followed by an opportunity to repair) to a subcontractor or supplier the general contractor believes to be responsible” for the issue prior to filing suit, the Nevada Supreme Court “determined that NRS Chapter 40 imposes no such requirement upon a subcontractor.” In Barrett v. Eighth Judicial District Court, “the court reasoned that ‘while the statutes’ and, indeed, chapter’s purpose is, in part, to allow defendants an initial opportunity to repair, the Legislature chose to carry out that purpose in the manner provided by the statutes, and [the Supreme Court] will not read into the statutes a notice requirement between a subcontractor and another subcontractor or supplier where none exist.’” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES