CAMBRIDGE MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING EXPERT
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Federal Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking State's Enforcement of New Law Banning Mandatory Employee Arbitration Agreements

February 24, 2020 — Amy R. Patton, Jeffrey K. Brown & Tyler B. Runge - Payne & Fears
On January 31, 2020, Judge Kimberly Mueller issued a preliminary injunction "in full" preventing the State of California from enforcing AB 51, the state's new law effectively banning mandatory employee arbitration agreements. As we previously reported, AB 51 adds section 432.6 to the Labor Code and section 12953 to the Government Code, which together prohibit employers from requiring an employee, as a condition of employment, continued employment, or receipt of employment-related benefits, to waive any right, forum, or procedure to pursue a claim under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act or the Labor Code. In other words, AB 51 bans mandatory employment arbitration agreements for employment-related claims. In early December 2019, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a coalition of business organizations sued the state of California in federal court in a bid to have AB 51 declared preempted --- and therefore unenforceable --- by the Federal Arbitration Act. The case is Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Becerra, Case No. 2:19-cv-2456 KJM DB (E.D. Cal.). On December 30, 2019, Judge Mueller issued a temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing AB 51 pending the resolution of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. You can read our report here. Reprinted courtesy of Payne & Fears attorneys Amy R. Patton, Jeffrey K. Brown and Tyler B. Runge Ms. Patton may be contacted at arp@paynefears.com Mr. Brown may be contacted at kb@paynefears.com Mr. Runge may be contacted at tbr@paynefears.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

New York’s Second Department Holds That Carrier Must Pay Judgment Obtained by Plaintiff as Carrier Did Not Meet Burden to Prove Willful Non-Cooperation

November 23, 2020 — Craig Rokuson - Traub Lieberman
In the recent case of DeLuca v. RLI Insurance Company, 2020 WL 5931054 (October 7, 2020), the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department held that RLI had a duty to pay a judgment obtained by an underlying plaintiff against RLI’s insured, MLSC. The underlying plaintiff brought the action directly against the carrier after obtaining a judgment against MLSC, and when the judgment remained unsatisfied, serving RLI with the judgment. As an initial matter, the court found that the direct action by the plaintiff was proper under New York Insurance Law 3420(a), which allows for an injured plaintiff to maintain a direct action against a carrier if a judgment against that carrier’s insured remains unsatisfied for a period of 30 days and the carrier is served with that judgment. In that event, the plaintiff steps into the shoes of the insured and is entitled to the rights of the insured (and is also subject to the carrier’s coverage defenses). Reprinted courtesy of Craig Rokuson, Traub Lieberman Mr. Rokuson may be contacted at crokuson@tlsslaw.com Read the full story... Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Law Alert: A Specialty License May Not Be Required If Work Covered By Another License

March 07, 2011 — Steven M. Cvitanovic

Contractors should always be sure that they understand the licensing in any Subcontract or Prime Contract before entering into any agreement. However, on March 3, 2011, in the case of Pacific Casson & Shoring, Inc. v. Bernards Bros., Inc. 2011 Cal.App.Lexis 236, the Court of Appeal determined that if a specialty license is subsumed within another license, the specialty license may not be required.



Bernards entered into a subcontract with Pacific to excavate, backfill, grade and provide geotechnical design parameters for a hospital. The Prime Contract required the bidder to maintain a Class C-12 specialty earthwork license. However, Pacific only held a Class A general engineering license which it turns out was suspended during the performance of the work. Pacific sued Bernards for nonpayment of $544,567, but the lawsuit was dismissed because the trial court found that Pacific (1) lacked a C-12 license, and (2) Pacific’s Class A license was suspended for failure to pay an unrelated judgment. Pacific was also ordered to disgorge $206,437 in prior payments.



The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded. The Court of Appeal agreed with Pacific and held that a C-12 specialty license was not required despite the Prime Contract. The Court of Appeal found that the C-12 specialty license would have been “superfluous” since it was fully encompassed within the Class A requirements. However, the Court of Appeal also remanded the case for further



Read the full story...



Reprinted courtesy of Steve Cvitanovic of Haight Brown & Bonesteel, LLP.

Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Construction Venture Sues LAX for Nonpayment

February 05, 2014 — Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFF
Construction joint venture Walsh/Austin filed suit against the Los Angeles International Airport, claiming that “the airport failed to properly pay more than $2.4 million to an electrical subcontractor,” according to The Daily Breeze. Furthermore, SASCO, the electrical firm, alleged that they were “given inaccurate design documents that made it impossible for the company to carry out the work at the agreed-upon rate.” The complaint, as reported by The Daily Breeze, cited “other lawsuits brought by an Orange County plastering firm and a Buena Park door company” and suggested that “eventually, all the litigation tied to nonpayment at LAX will end up in the same courtroom.” Nancy Castles, a spokeswoman for Los Angeles World Airports, told The Daily Breeze that “the agency does not comment on pending litigation.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

False Implied Certifications in Making Payment Requests: What We Can Learn from Lance Armstrong

January 20, 2020 — Brian S. Wood & Alex Gorelik - ConsensusDocs
In April 2018, the Department of Justice announced a $5M settlement reached in its lawsuit against former professional cyclist, Lance Armstrong. While the fallout from Armstrong’s latently-admitted use of performance-enhancing drugs (“PEDs”) was well-publicized, including lost sponsorship deals, stripped Tour de France titles, and damage to his reputation, few were aware of Armstrong’s exposure to liability and criminal culpability for false claims against the government. The DOJ’s announcement reminded Armstrong and the rest of us of the golden rule of dealing with the government: honesty is the best policy. The corollary to that rule is that dishonesty is costly. Armstrong’s liability stemmed from false statements (denying the use of PEDs) he made, directly and through team members and other representatives, to U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) representatives and to the public. USPS was the primary sponsor of the grand tour cycling team led by Armstrong. The government alleged in the lawsuit that Armstrong’s false statements were made to induce USPS to renew and increase its sponsorship fees, in violation of the False Claims Act. The Statute Enacted in 1863, the False Claims Act (“FCA”) was originally aimed at stopping and deterring frauds perpetrated by contractors against the government during the Civil War. Congress amended the FCA in the years since its enactment, but its primary focus and target have remained those who present or directly induce the submission of false or fraudulent claims. The current FCA imposes penalties on anyone who knowingly presents “a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” to the federal Government. A “claim” now includes direct requests to the Government for payment, as well as reimbursement requests made to the recipients of federal funds under federal benefits programs (such as Medicare). Thirty-one states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have also enacted laws imposing penalties for false claims against state agencies and their subdivisions, with most of these laws modelled after the federal FCA. Reprinted courtesy of Brian S. Wood, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP and Alex Gorelik, Smith, Currie & Hancock, LLP Mr. Wood may be contacted at bswood@smithcurrie.com Mr. Gorelik may be contacted at agorelik@smithcurrie.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Louisiana Couple Sues over Defects in Foreclosed Home

September 24, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A Louisiana couple is suing over the home they bought, claiming that the sellers knew there were defects in the home, including termite damage, mold, and roof leaks. When the Eastmans bought the home, they were assured that inspectors had cleared the property. The home had been foreclosed upon and purchased by Beverly Knoll, LLC. The Eastmans subsequently purchased the home from Beverly Knoll. After the sale, the plaintiffs hired their own inspector who found the damage and no evidence of attempts at repair. The Eastmans informed one of the defendants, Troy Duhon, who informed them that the defendants would be assuming the costs of repair. However, after the Eastmans requested $94,000 in reimbursements, the defendants declined to pay. Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Defective Concrete Blocks Spell Problems for Donegal Homeowners

October 30, 2013 — CDJ STAFF
A number of recently built homes in Donegal, Ireland are suffering from crumbing cement blocks used in the construction. This was previously seen in homes in the Leinster Region, and seems to be more widespread than previously thought. Damien McKay, an engineer who specializes in building litigation noted that the blocks started cracking about five years after the homes were constructed. In some cases, “the actual concrete blocks beneath the plaster can be easily broken and in some occasions with as little effort as rubbing with your fingers.” Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---

Court of Appeal Shines Light on Collusive Settlement Agreements

October 21, 2015 — Kristian B. Moriarty & R. Bryan Martin – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
In Diamond v. Reshko, (filed 8/20/2015, No. A139251) the California Court of Appeal, First District, held that a defendant was entitled to introduce evidence at trial reflecting amounts paid by co-defendants in settlement of a plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff, Christine Diamond, was injured during an automobile accident that occurred while she was a passenger in a taxi driven by Amir Mansouri. Christine, and her husband Andrew, filed suit against Mr. Mansouri, the Yellow Cab Collective (“Yellow Cab”), and the driver of the vehicle that collided with the taxi, Serge Reshko. Before trial, Mansouri and the Yellow Cab Collective settled with Plaintiffs, but agreed to appear and participate as defendants at the jury trial of the action. Mansouri and Yellow Cab paid a total of $400,000 to Plaintiffs in settlement. Reshko filed a pre-trial motion seeking an order permitting Reshko to admit evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs and the other defendants. The trial court refused to rule on the motion before trial. Ultimately, evidence of the settlement between Plaintiffs, Mansouri and Yellow Cab was excluded during trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs in the total amount of $745,778, finding Mansouri 40 percent at fault, and Reshko 60 percent at fault. The Trial Court entered judgment against Reshko in the sum of $406,698. Reshko appealed the judgment. The First District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that evidence of the settlement should have been admitted at trial because the settling defendant’s position should be revealed to the court and jury to avoid committing a fraud on the court, and in order to permit the trier of fact to properly weigh the settling defendant’s testimony. Reprinted courtesy of Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com Read the court decision
Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of

---