Court Upholds Plan to Eliminate Vehicles from Balboa Park Complex
June 10, 2015 —
Kristen Lee Price and Lawrence S. Zucker II – Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, et al. (No. D063992, filed 5/28/15), the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld a controversial plan to eliminate vehicles from various plazas in historic Balboa Park. In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered a question of first impression involving the interpretation of San Diego Municipal Code section 126.0504.
Balboa Park, designated a National Historic Landmark in 1940, is a large urban park in the center of San Diego. The City of San Diego (“City”) recently approved a proposed plan (“Project”) to eliminate vehicles from the plazas within the Balboa Park complex and to return the plazas to purely pedestrian zones. Subsequently, a community group named Save Our Heritage Organisation (“SOHO”) filed a petition for a writ of mandate alleging, among other things, the City erroneously approved the Project. SOHO contended Municipal Code section 126.0504 mandated two key findings be made before the Project could be approved: (1) that the intended purpose of the property would not be adversely affected; and (2) without the proposed project, the property would not be put to a “reasonable beneficial use.” SOHO argued that although the City made the requisite findings, those findings lacked substantial evidentiary support. The trial court agreed with SOHO and directed the City to rescind the site development permit.
The City argued on appeal that Municipal Code section 126.0504 vested it with “discretion to make a qualitative determination of whether an existing use of the property, even if deemed beneficial, is also a reasonable use of that property under all of the facts and circumstances applicable to the particular property in question.” The Court of Appeal agreed and reversed.
Reprinted courtesy of
Kristen Lee Price, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Lawrence S. Zucker II, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Ms. Price may be contacted at kprice@hbblaw.com; Mr. Zucker may be contacted at lzucker@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
“A No-Lose Proposition?”
October 07, 2024 —
Daniel Lund III - LexologyA Miller Act payment bond surety and its principal general contractor both sued in federal court in New Orleans by a project subcontractor sought to compel arbitration the claims against both contractor and surety based on an indisputably enforceable arbitration clause in the subcontract. This was urged to avoid separate actions against the contractor (arbitration) and its surety (litigation), even though the surety was not a party to the subcontract and, therefore, not a party to the arbitration clause.
In the face of the lack of an express agreement to arbitrate, the contractor and contractor argued that “no federal statute or policy prohibits all of Plaintiff’s claims from proceeding to arbitration….” Additionally, those parties urged that the surety should be allowed to affirmatively compel arbitration because the surety “would otherwise have the ability to assert the right to compel arbitration as a defense….”
The New Orleans federal district court was unpersuaded:
“[D]istrict courts within this circuit have recognized that ‘Miller Act claims by a subcontractor for unpaid labor and materials are separate and distinct from those for general breach of contract… [and] arbitration and Miller Act suits, are not, per se, inconsistent with one another.’…[A]bsent express contractual intent to subject Miller Act claims to arbitration, the court [will] not force the parties to arbitrate claims against nonparties to the contract at issue…. [C]laims against a surety, which was a non-signatory to the contract, would not be subject to arbitration without any contractual basis to do so.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Daniel Lund III, PhelpsMr. Lund may be contacted at
daniel.lund@phelps.com
Ninth Circuit Clears the Way for Review of Oregon District Court’s Rulings in Controversial Climate Change Case
February 27, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn 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 decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Nine Newmeyer & Dillion Attorneys Recognized as Southern California Super Lawyers
February 11, 2019 —
Newmeyer & Dillion LLPProminent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer & Dillion LLP is pleased to announce that nine of its Newport Beach attorneys have been selected to the 2019 Southern California Super Lawyers list. Each year, no more than 5 percent of lawyers are selected to receive this honor.
Attorneys named to the Southern California Super Lawyers list include:
Michael Cucchissi
Jeff Dennis
Greg Dillion
Joseph Ferrentino
Charles Krolikowski
John O'Hara
Jane Samson
Michael Studenka
Paul Tetzloff
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The patented selection process includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.
About Newmeyer & Dillion
For almost 35 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, privacy & data security 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
Affirmed: Nationwide Acted in Bad Faith by Failing to Settle Within Limits
July 19, 2017 —
Bethany Barrese – Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.The Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed that Nationwide acted in bad faith by refusing to settle a claim against its insured for the policy limits, exposing the policyholder to an excess verdict.1
The case arose out of a 2005 automobile accident where Seung Park, who was insured by Nationwide, struck and killed another driver, Stacey Camacho. Shortly after the accident, Ms. Camacho’s estate issued a time-limited demand for the full limits of the policy Nationwide issued to Mr. Park, $100,000, to settle the case. After the deadline to respond to the demand expired, Nationwide rejected the demand and made a counteroffer. A settlement could not be reached and a wrongful death suit was filed against Mr. Park, resulting in a massive jury verdict of $5.83 million.
Following the jury verdict, Mr. Park assigned his rights against Nationwide to Ms. Camacho’s estate, which then filed claims for negligence and bad faith failure to settle against Nationwide. The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of the estate.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bethany Barrese, Saxe Doernberger & Vita, P.C.Ms. Barrese may be contacted at
blb@sdvlaw.com
Florida’s Third District Court of Appeal Suggests Negligent Repairs to Real Property Are Not Subject to the Statute of Repose
June 29, 2017 —
Nicole Rodolico, Esq. - Florida Construction Law NewsFlorida’s Third District Court of Appeal (“Third District”) recently addressed the applicable statute of limitations for repairs under Section 95.11, Florida Statutes, including the issue of whether a repair constitutes an improvement to real property. In Companion Property & Casualty Group v. Built Tops Building Services, Inc., No. 3D16-2044, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6584 (Fla. 3d DCA May 10, 2017) (“Companion”), the Third District ruled that the trial court erred in finding that a subrogation action arising out of an alleged defective roof repair was time-barred because the statute of limitations had run.
On February 8, 2016, Companion Property & Casualty Group (“Companion”) filed its complaint against a building services company, Built Tops Building Services, Inc. (“Built Tops”), for negligent repair of its insured’s roof. Companion alleged that the defective roof repair was performed on November 21, 2006. Companion further alleged that as a result of Built Tops’ work, the insured suffered water damage to the condominium building on February 9, 2012. Built Tops moved to dismiss the action on the basis that the applicable four-year statute of limitations had run on Companion’s claim, which Built Tops argued accrued on the date the repair was performed, November 21, 2006. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Nicole Rodolico, Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A.Ms. Rodolico may be contacted at
nicole.rodolico@csklegal.com
Going Digital in 2019: The Latest Technology for a Bright Future in Construction
February 18, 2019 —
Jim Romeo - Construction ExecutiveThe spectrum of technology available to today’s contractors is wide and deep. This techno-ecosystem will change just about every operational tick and tock needed to build world-class projects—from where and how people work to what equipment they use and how they record payments.
“Generally speaking, the use of technology in construction is surging, particularly in the past three to five years,” says Chris Amato, principal and national advisory leader for the Chicago-based management consultancy Grant Thornton. “It’s becoming the cost of doing business; every player, at some point or another, is going to need to embrace it to some degree. The key questions are where to start, where to invest and how to minimize risk.”
Reprinted courtesy of
Jim Romeo, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Business Solutions Alert: Homeowners' Complaint for Breach of Loan Modification Agreement Can Proceed Past Pleading Stage
October 08, 2014 —
Krsto Mijanovic, Annette Mijanovic, Blythe Golay - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Fleet v. Bank of America, N.A. (No. G050049, published 9/23/14, filed 8/25/14), a California Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer of a lender, where the homeowners had adequately alleged causes of action for breach of contract, fraud, and promissory estoppel. The homeowners alleged that they made timely payments during the trial period plan under the modification program, but before the last payment was due, the lender foreclosed and their house was sold.
The homeowners had applied for a loan modification and were approved for a trial period plan under the modification program. They were required to make three monthly payments and verify financial hardship to permanently modify their loan. The homeowners made two payments and were told that foreclosure proceedings had been suspended. But before the third payment was due, the lender foreclosed. The trial court found that the trial period plan was not a binding loan modification agreement, so the homeowners had no right to any guaranteed loan modification.
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP attorneys
Krsto Mijanovic,
Annette Mijanovic and
Blythe Golay
Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com
Ms. Mijanovic may be contacted at amijanovic@hbblaw.com
Ms. Golay may be contacted at bgolay@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
