Attorney's Erroneous Conclusion that Limitations Period Had Not Expired Was Not Grounds For Relief Under C.C.P. § 473(b)
February 27, 2019 —
David W. Evans & Stephen J. SquillarioIn Jackson v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc. (2/8/19 No. A150833), the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s denial of a motion for relief from a voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, filed by the plaintiff based on the erroneous conclusion of an attorney who she had consulted (but who had not yet appeared as counsel in her case) that the applicable statute of limitations had not yet expired. In reality, the limitations period had expired on the same date plaintiff had filed her complaint in propria persona. The plaintiff later retained the attorney on a limited basis to present the motion for relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) based on the attorney’s affidavit of fault. Therein, the attorney testified that he had advised the plaintiff to dismiss her action voluntarily based on a misinterpretation of the applicable limitations period, which the attorney characterized as having been based on his “mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect.”
Section 473 provides two distinct provisions for relief from default or dismissal – one is discretionary, while the other is mandatory. Discretionary relief is available in the case of an attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. In contrast, mandatory relief is available where the resulting dismissal was caused by an attorney’s mistake, whether or not excusable. In denying the plaintiff’s motion, the trial court reasoned that the plaintiff could not rely upon Section 473(b) because (1) the attorney did not represent the plaintiff at the time and (2) this provision did not apply to the voluntary dismissal of an action without prejudice.
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
Attorneys’ Fees and the American Arbitration Association Rule
September 09, 2024 —
Bill Wilson - Construction Law ZoneA common question from clients, when a dispute arises on a construction project, is whether they can recover their attorney’s fees from the other side if they pursue a case and win. More often than not, such fees are not recoverable. As a general rule (commonly known as the “American Rule”), each party to a dispute must bear their own attorney’s fees unless there is some statutory provision or contractual agreement between the parties allowing otherwise. Since most construction disputes involve claims for breach of contract and/or negligence, no realistic statutory provision often allows for attorney’s fees. Many construction contracts do not typically provide a prevailing party the right to collect attorney’s fees from the other side. However, even if the American Rule applies, there may be another path to recovering attorney’s fees if the parties agree to arbitrate their dispute under the American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules.
Reprinted courtesy of
Bill Wilson, Robinson & Cole LLP
Mr. Wilson may be contacted at wwilson@rc.com
Read the full story...
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
New York vs. Miami: The $50 Million Penthouse Battle From Zaha Hadid
October 28, 2015 —
James Tarmy – BloombergThe Anglo-Iraqi starchitect Zaha Hadid has designed just two residential buildings in the U.S., one in New York (520 West 28th Street in the Chelsea Gallery District next to the High Line) and one in Miami (One Thousand Museum, next to PAMM and overlooking Biscayne Bay). Both have yet to be completed and both, as it happens, have penthouses priced in the region of $50 million.
Two trophy properties by a Pritzker Prize-winning architect and two almost identical price tags? (The Miami penthouse clocks in at a mere $49 million, the New York penthouse an even $50 million.) It’s practically begging for a head-to-head comparison.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
James Tarmy, Bloomberg
You're Doing Construction in Russia, Now What?
May 16, 2022 —
Anazette Ray & Michael Vardaro - Zetlin & De Chiara LLPIn recent weeks, there has been a long list of companies, from all industries spanning from construction/engineering to fashion and hospitality, that have announced that they are completely severing ties with Russia, while a host of others have announced a temporary halt. See Jeffrey A. Sonnenfeld, Over 400 Companies Have Withdrawn from Russia – But Some Remain, Yale School of Management (Updated Mar. 21, 2022), https://som.yale.edu/story/2022/over-400-companies-have-withdrawn-russia-some-remain?utm_campaign=mb. For those developers, EPC contractors, and design professionals (engineers and architects) who have construction projects in Russia, the question is, “How should we proceed?”
The U.S. initially stated that it was not issuing a total embargo on business dealings and trade relations with Russia in response to the nation’s invasion of Ukraine. Instead, the U.S., along with many other Western nations, issued targeted sanctions. See Francesco Giumelli, Understanding Targeted U.N. Sanctions: An Empirical Analysis, International Affairs, 91(6), 1351-1368 (explaining the difference between embargoes and targeted sanctions). However, after evidence of war crimes by Russia emerged, President Biden issued an Executive Order prohibiting U.S. individuals, whether in the states or abroad, from new investments in Russia and prohibiting U.S. individuals from transactions with Russian state-owned entities. See April 6, 2022, Presidential Actions, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/04/06/prohibiting-new-investment-in-and-certain-services-to-the-russian-federation-in-response-to-continued-russian-federation-aggression/. This new Executive Order is said to not affect existing contracts in Russia, but instead prohibits new ones.
Reprinted courtesy of
Anazette Ray, Zetlin & De Chiara LLP and
Michael Vardaro, Zetlin & De Chiara LLP
Ms. Ray may be contacted at aray@zdlaw.com
Mr. Vardaro may be contacted at mvardaro@zdlaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Traub Lieberman Chair Emeritus Awarded the 2022 Vince Donohue Award by the International Association of Claim Professionals
August 07, 2022 —
Richard K. Traub - Traub LiebermanTraub Lieberman is pleased to announce that firm Chair Emeritus Richard Traub has been awarded the 2022 Vince Donohue Award by the International Association of Claim Professionals (IACP).
The IACP provides a forum for senior Claim leaders from across the globe to build relationships with their peers, enhance their knowledge of strategic claim issues and trends, freely exchange views and ideas in order to improve the development, leadership and professionalism of its members and foster goodwill and better business among insurance organizations worldwide. Attorneys at Traub Lieberman have been longstanding members and Diamond Sponsors of the IACP.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Richard K. Traub, Traub LiebermanMr. Traub may be contacted at
rtraub@tlsslaw.com
It’s Time to Start Planning for Implementation of OSHA’s Silica Rule
May 03, 2017 —
Nathan Owens & Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer – Newmeyer & Dillion LLPGetting a notification from OSHA that your company is being investigated for a health or safety violation is an unwanted disruption to your business that could lead to a hefty monetary fine. Worse yet, if your company is found to have committed multiple violations, OSHA may categorize your company as a severe violator, which makes you subject to follow-up inspections. In the last 6 years, OSHA has added 520 companies to the Severe Violator Enforcement Program - sixty percent of which are in the construction industry.
New OSHA regulations impacting the construction industry may result in more companies facing investigations and fines, or worse yet, laying off workers and unable to compete for new work. In 2013, OSHA proposed a new mandate to reduce silicosis in workers. The mandate, which was revised multiple times before being made final in March 2016, requires that employers ensure their workers are exposed to no more than 50 micrograms of crystalline silica in an eight hour period (down from the current standard of 250 micrograms). Under the new mandate, employers are also held to heightened reporting requirements, protective measures and medical testing for employees with extended exposure to silica.
In the construction industry alone, OSHA believes the new mandate will prevent 1,080 cases of silicosis and more than 560 deaths. Builder and trade groups believe the new mandate will result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs and cost the building industry billions of dollars. The National Association of Home Builders estimates that the Silica Rule will cost homebuilders $1,500 per start. While the two sides mount their arguments and seek support, how to implement the rule and its long term feasibility are still contested questions.
Recognizing the challenges employers will have with the heightened requirements of the Silica Rule, OSHA just announced that enforcement is being delayed 90 days to develop additional guidance for implementation of the rule in the construction industry. The new start date for enforcement of the Silica Rule is September 23, 2017.*
Many in the industry are hoping the Trump administration repeals the Silica Rule like they have “blacklisting” and the Volks rule. However, until that happens, OSHA expects your company to implement processes to ensure compliance by the new start date.
*The Silica Rule was adopted by Cal/OSHA in August 2016 even though Cal/OSHA’s own silica standard had been in place since 2008. Cal/OSHA adopted the federal standard with the June 23, 2017 effective date; however; in an effort to synchronize with OSHA, Cal/OSHA recently announced that the effective date in California will also be September 23, 2017.
Nathan Owens is the Las Vegas Managing Partner of Newmeyer & Dillion, and represents businesses and individuals operating in a wide array of economic sectors including real estate, construction, insurance and health care in all stages of litigation in state and federal court. For questions related to the OSHA and the Silica Rule, you can reach him at Nathan.Owens@ndlf.com.
Louis “Dutch” Schotemeyer is an associate in Newmeyer & Dillion’s Newport Beach office. Dutch’s practice concentrates on the areas of business litigation, labor and employment law, and construction litigation. For questions related to OSHA or the Silica Rule, you can reach him at Dutch.Schotemeyer@ndlf.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Toolbox Talk Series Recap - The New Science of Jury Trial Advocacy
December 31, 2024 —
Douglas J. Mackin - The Dispute ResolverIn the November 21, 2024 edition of Division 1's Toolbox Talk Series,
John Jerry Glas discussed how construction lawyers should adjust their trial strategies in response to shifts in juror attitudes. Glas believes that jurors have changed in the last twenty years, with modern jurors being more reluctant than ever to be seen as a lawyer’s puppet. Instead, they simply want a lawyer to help them organize and wade through evidence without spinning it and without spoon-feeding it. Essentially, Glas believes that lawyers achieve better jury trial results if they acknowledge the paradigm shift in jury psychology and reinvent themselves in response by influencing jury deliberations without directly telling a jury what to do. Glas refers to this as the “Waiter Pivot” and recently published a
book on the topic.
Throughout his presentation, Glas discussed how construction lawyers can embrace the Waiter Pivot throughout a jury trial:
- Voir Dire: Lawyers make their first impressions on a jury during voir dire. As such, lawyers should avoid questions that make jurors feel judged or stereotyped. Instead, give the jurors credit and make use of the opportunity to begin framing their case. For example, Glas once repeated the word “specifications” or “specs” in every question during voir dire where his product liability case turned on whether or not the product deviated from specifications.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Douglas J. Mackin, Cozen O’ConnorMr. Mackin may be contacted at
dmackin@cozen.com
Colorado Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Statute of Limitations for Statutory Bad Faith Claims and the Implied Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
July 11, 2018 —
Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich - Gordon & Rees Insurance Coverage Law BlogThe Colorado Supreme Court has been busy the past two weeks, issuing a couple rulings that should be of interest to the insurance industry:
Statute of Limitations for Bad Faith Statute: In Rooftop Restoration, Inc. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Co., 2018 CO 44 (May 29, 2018), the Colorado Supreme Court held that the one-year statute of limitations that applies to penalties, does not apply to claims brought under C.R.S. 10-3-1116, Colorado’s statutory cause of action for unreasonable delay or denial of benefits. Section 10-3-1116 provides that a first-party claimant whose claim for payment of benefits has been unreasonably delayed or denied may seek to recover attorney fees, costs, and two times the covered benefit, in addition to the covered benefit. A separate Colorado statute, CRS 13-80-103(1)(d) provides a one-year statute of limitations for “any penalty or forfeiture of any penal statutes.” To arrive at the conclusion that the double damages available under section 10-3-1116 is not a penalty, the Court looked at yet another statutory provision, governing accrual of causes of action for penalties, which provides that a penalty cause of action accrues when “the determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . is no longer subject to appeal.” The Court stated that because a cause of action under 10-3-1116 “never leads to a determination of overpayment or delinquency . . . the claim would never accrue, and the statute of limitations would be rendered meaningless.” Para. 15. Presumably, the default two-year statute of limitations, provided by CRS 13-80-102(1)(i), will now be found to apply to causes of action seeking damages for undue delay or denial of insurance benefits.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Jennifer Arnett-Roehrich, Gordon & Rees Scully MansukhaniMs. Arnett-Roehrich may be contacted at
jarnett-roehrich@grsm.com
