CA Supreme Court Expands Scope of Lawyers’ Statute of Limitations to Non-Legal Malpractice Claims – Confusion Predicted for Law and Motion Judges
August 26, 2015 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. Squillario – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Lee v. Hanley (S220775 – Filed 8/20/2015), the California Supreme Court clarified the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.6 by holding that its limitations period applies to claims against attorneys “whose merits necessarily depend on proof that an attorney violated a professional obligation in the course of providing professional services.” Although it resolved a district split by finding that the statute governs for non-legal malpractice claims against attorneys including those of non-clients, by having the statute’s applicability “turn on the conduct alleged and ultimately proven, not on the way the complaint was styled,” this 5-2 decision also increased the specter of creative pleading and lengthy litigation.
In Lee, the client had advanced $120,000 to cover attorney’s fees, costs and expert witness fees for the underlying litigation. After the case settled, the attorney advised the client that she had a credit balance of approximately $46,000. In response to her demand for a refund, the attorney then advised the client that she did not have a credit balance. More than one year later, the client filed suit to recover the $46,000, plus interest. The trial court sustained the attorney’s demurrer based on the one-year statute of limitations in section 340.6. The appellate court, however, reversed, reasoning that the client’s claim could be construed as one for conversion, in which case section 340.6 would not apply.
Reprinted courtesy of
David W. Evans, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Stephen J. Squillario, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Evans may be contacted at devans@hbblaw.com
Mr. Squillario may be contacted at ssquillario@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Sixth Circuit Rejects Claim for Reverse Bad Faith
June 17, 2015 —
Tred R. Eyerly – Insurance Law HawaiiThe Sixth Circuit rejected the insurer's claim for reverse bad faith against its insured who made a fraudulent claim after her home was destroyed by fire. State Auto Property and Cas. Ins. Co. v. Hargis, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 7475 (6th Cir. April 23, 2015).
The insured's home burned to the ground early one morning. She filed what she would later admit was a fraudulent insurance claim with State Auto for approximately $866,000. State Auto paid in excess of $425,000 before filing an action to declare the policy void. State Farm's investigation eventually led to the insured's admission that she had a friend burn down her house to collect insurance proceeds. An indictment was issued and the insured pled guilty. She was sentenced to a 60-month term and was ordered to pay restitution to State Auto totaling $672,497.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Insurance Law HawaiiMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
Five New Laws to Know Before They Take Effect On Jan. 1, 2022
December 27, 2021 —
Amy R. Patton & Blake A. Dillion - Payne & FearsGov. Gavin Newsom closed California’s 2020-2021 Legislative Session with a flurry of bill signings, many of which created and/or updated employment-related laws. A few of these bills were “emergency bills” which became effective immediately (such as the COVID-related right to rehire and sick pay laws), while others do not become effective until Jan. 1, 2022. Employers should ensure that their policies, procedures, and systems comply with these new and updated laws.
California’s Regulation of Quotas in Warehouse Distribution Centers
On Sept. 22, 2021, Governor Newsom signed AB 701, aimed at regulating quotas in warehouse distribution centers, into law. Effective Jan. 1, 2022, employers with 100 or more employees at a single warehouse distribution center or 1,000 or more employees at one or more warehouse distribution centers in the state must provide to each nonexempt employee, upon hire, or by Jan. 31, 2022, a written description of each quota to which the employee is subject. This bill also sets certain standards for what constitutes an enforceable quota and for the employer’s obligation to respond to information requests.
Employers should carefully review their quota systems to first determine if the quotas are necessary, and if so, ensure compliance with this new law by preparing clear written descriptions for each and every quota. A more in-depth discussion of the provisions of the AB 701 can be found
here.
Reprinted courtesy of
Amy R. Patton, Payne & Fears and
Blake A. Dillion, Payne & Fears
Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com
Mr. Dillion may be contacted at bad@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Results are in, CEO/Founding Partner Nicole Whyte is Elected to OCBA’s 2024 Board of Directors!
October 09, 2023 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is excited to share that CEO/Founding Partner Nicole Whyte has been elected to the Orange County Bar Associations (“OCBA”) slate of four open Board of Directors for a three-year term beginning January 2024, alongside Casey Johnson (Aitken Aitken Cohn LLP), William O’Neill (Ross, Wolcott, Teinert & Prout LLP), and Lesley Young (Orange County District Attorney’s Office).
“It is one of the greatest honors of my career to have been elected to the OCBA board of directors. Thank you to all those who supported me; I will work tirelessly as your representative to serve our bar and community. I am especially excited to work alongside President Elect Christina Zabat-Fran and the other esteemed members of the board. I look forward to applying my skills and knowledge to serve our legal community as we work to promote excellence, integrity and honor in our profession, and to improve the practice for all.” – Nicole Whyte
Nicole is honored to have the opportunity to continue her support with the OC legal community. For over two decades, she has served on various OCBA legal committees and boards. Nicole currently serves on the board of OCBA Master’s Division and is the 2023 Board President of the Public Law Center, the largest pro-bono law firm in Orange County. She is also a current board member of the Sonenshine Pro Bono Committee. Nicole is a founding fellow of the OC Bar Foundation and served as secretary for the Robert Banyard Inn of Court for eight years. Nicole plans to call upon her experience serving on various boards, and her many years of law practice and management experience, to help identify and support the needs of the OCBA and its thriving and diverse OC legal community.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Claims Litigated Under Government Claims Act Must “Fairly Reflect” Factual Claims Made in Underlying Government Claim
November 27, 2023 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogUnlike horseshoes and hand grenades, close sometimes isn’t close enough.
In the next case, Hernandez v. City of Stockton, 90 Cal.App.5th 1222 (2023), the Third District Court of appeal found that a pedestrian who sued a public entity for personal injuries caused by an “uplifted sidewalk” was barred from pursuing his claim when it was revealed that he had in fact injured himself by falling into a hole left by an “empty tree well” (i.e., a tree well that did not contain a tree”). According to the Court, the pedestrian’s claim was barred because the factual basis for recovery asserted in his complaint was not “fairly reflected” in his government claim.
The Hernandez Case
In April 2018, pedestrian Manual Sanchez Hernandez injured himself while walking on a public sidewalk in Stockton, California. He submitted a government claim with the City of Stockton claiming that his injuries, which included injuries to his knee, hands and back, was caused by a dangerous condition on public property. In his government claim, Hernandez alleged that he tripped on an “uplifted sidewalk” at or near 230 E. Charter Way in Stockton, California and that his injuries were due because the City “negligently and recklessly designed, maintained and operated the subject property so as to cause [his] injuries.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Nomos LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
Commerce City Enacts Reform to Increase For-Sale Multifamily Housing
August 19, 2015 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LigitationMany cities in Denver’s metropolitan areas are experiencing tremendous growth. For more than a year, Colorado has been reported to be in a building boom. However even with the noticeable expansion, some areas still suffer from a lack of housing options specific to multifamily developments. Sean Ford, Mayor of Commerce City, stated that “[the city] has not approved a new condominium or multi-family project since 2008.”[1] Those of us in the construction industry attribute this shortage, at least in part, to construction defect litigation, which is often drawn-out, complicated, and very costly to builders.
Predicting that light rail service will intensify the need for owner-occupied units among Commerce City residents, the city council enacted legislation to address this scarcity. Ordinance No. 2060 which took effect August 1, 2015 provides “reasonable steps to encourage prompt and voluntary correction of construction defects … in order to enhance the health and safety of residents of Commerce City.”
The ordinance requires a homeowner who discovers a defect to provide written notice via certified mail or personal delivery to the responsible builder, contractor, engineer, or design professional. The notice may include requests for relevant construction documentation, maintenance recommendations, and warranty information. The builder must acknowledge receipt of notice and provide requested documents within 14 days.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David M. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLCMr. McLain may be contacted at
mclain@hhmrlaw.com
Pacing in Construction Scheduling Disputes
September 14, 2017 —
Luke Mecklenburg - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogOn a high level, construction delay litigation involves sorting out the impacts to the critical project path and determining which party is responsible for those impacts. One of the more difficult elements of this process is determining whether a delay would have occurred regardless of one party’s critical path impact due to a separate, independent impact to the critical path by the other party. For example, a contractor cannot collect delay damages for delays caused by the owner if the contractor itself was causing independent impacts that would have pushed off the completion date anyway.
However, the concept of “pacing” provides a potential defense for a party who is not on pace with the as-planned schedule for noncritical activities, even where those activities are still ongoing after the planned completion date. “Pacing delays” are a type of concurrent delay that occur when one party makes a conscious decision to decelerate or slow down the pace of noncritical activities to keep pace with the critical delays of another party. A more formal definition would be “deceleration of the work of the project, by one of the parties to a contract, due to a delay caused by the other party, so as to maintain steady progress with the revised overall project schedule.” Zack, Pacing Delays–The Practical Effect, Construction Specifier 47, 48 (Jan. 2000). A party to the construction process may decide to slow down its performance of noncritical activities to keep pace with the delayed progress. For example, contractors may adjust the pace of their work in light of delays in owner-furnished equipment, delays by other multiple prime contractors, delays in permits, limited access, or differing site conditions. Owners may slow down their response time to requests for information or submittals, or postpone the delivery of owner-furnished equipment or the processing of change orders. Id. at 48.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Luke Mecklenburg, Snell & WilmerMr. Mecklenburg may be contacted at
lmecklenburg@swlaw.com
Sometimes it Depends on “Whose” Hand is in the Cookie Jar
January 21, 2015 —
Roger Hughes – California Construction Law BlogIn a lengthy and somewhat detailed decision, the California Court of Appeal for First District, in Pittsburg Unified School District v. S.J. Amoroso Construction Company, Inc., Case No. A138825 (December 22, 2014), held that a public entity could unilaterally withdraw retention funds during a pending legal dispute without the court first finding that the contractor had defaulted on the public works project.
Background
In 2008, general contractor S.J. Amoroso Construction Company, Inc. (“S.J. Amoroso”) entered into a construction contract with the Pittsburg Unified School District (“District”) for the reconstruction and modernization of a high school in Pittsburg, California.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Roger Hughes, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Hughes may be contacted at
rhughes@wendel.com
