Client Alert: Court Settles Conflict between CCP and Rules of Court Regarding Demurrer Deadline Following Amended Complaint
August 20, 2014 —
R. Bryan Martin and Kristian B. Moriarty - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPIn Carlton v. Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (No. E056566, filed 8/14/2014), The Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, held a demurrer was timely filed in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure (“CCP”) section 471.5, despite being filed after the 10-day filing period prescribed in California Rule of Court 3.1320(j).
This case appears to settle the conflict that existed between the CCP and the Rules of Court as to the timing of demurrers following amendments to Complaints. Prior to this case, the validity of Rule of Court 3.1320(j)(2) was unclear as it arguably conflicted with CCP Section 471.5, which requires defendants to “answer” an amended complaint within 30 days after service. At the same time, it was not clear that CCP Section 471.5 applied to amendments after a demurrer had been sustained, and it was even more unclear whether the statutory 30-day period to “answer” an amended complaint foreclosed the shorter 10-day period prescribed under Rule of Court 3.1320(j)(2) for a demurrer or motion to strike.
On July 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc. (“Dr. Pepper”) and others. On October 24, 2011, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Dr. Pepper demurred to the FAC on various grounds. On January 5, 2012, the trial court sustained the demurrer in part, and overruled it in part. The Court granted Plaintiff 30 days to amend the FAC.
Reprinted courtesy of
R. Bryan Martin, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP and
Kristian B. Moriarty, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
Mr. Martin may be contacted at bmartin@hbblaw.com, Mr. Moriarty may be contacted at kmoriarty@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Small to Midsize Builders Making Profit on Overlooked Lots
March 26, 2014 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFTeresa Burney and John Caulfield writing in Big Builder discussed how many small to mid-size firms are making profits off of lots overlooked by the big building firms. They stated that “builders are scouring the country for land to meet the new housing demand, and they are having trouble finding good lots in the right place at the right price. This is particularly true for small to mid-size builders.”
While the number of finished lots may be up, Burney and Caulfield declared that “the numbers are deceptive because roughly 25 percent of them are in what Metrostudy, BUILDER’s research company, describes as ‘D’ and ‘F’ locations—places so undesirable that nobody wants to live there.”
Strategies that builders have tried with success, according to Big Builder, include looking for older communities that local builders have forgotten, or choosing a lot that needs more work than most builders would want to deal with. “We are kind of a savior for developers with troublesome leftover lots,” William H. Hoover, president of Texas-based Inland Homes, told Big Builder. “You have got some ugly lots, let us come and finish out your community.”
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Florida “Property Damage” caused by an “Occurrence” and “Your Work” Exclusion
July 23, 2014 —
Scott Patterson - CD CoverageIn J.B.D. Construction, Inc. v. Mid-Continent Casualty Co., * Fed.Appx. *, 2014 WL 3377690 (11th Cir. 2014), claimant property owner Sun City contracted with insured general contractor J.B.D. for the construction of a fitness center. The fitness center was to be physically connected to an existing Sun City building. J.B.D. utilized subcontractors for some of the work. Shortly after completion, leaks developed in the fitness center’s roof, windows and doors which J.B.D. attempted to fix. After Sun City refused to make the final contract payment, J.B.D. sued Sun City for contract amounts owed. Sun City counterclaimed for the construction defects, alleged damage to the fitness center and other property. J.B.D. tendered defense of the counterclaim to its CGL insurer Mid-Continent. After Mid-Continent failed to agree to defend, J.B.D. settled with Sun City, paying Sun City $182K. Following several demands from J.B.D. for reimbursement of defense costs and the settlement amount, Mid-Continent tendered the defense costs minus a deductible. J.B.D. then sued Mid-Continent for breach of duties to defend and indemnify. On cross motions for summary judgment, the federal district trial court entered judgment for Mid-Continent, finding no duties to defend or indemnify. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed on the duty to defend while affirming on the duty to indemnify. Applying Florida law, the court first held that the defective work, including the defective installation of the fitness center’s windows, doors, and roof, did not constitute “property damage.” Thus, the costs to repair or replace the defective work did not constitute damages because of “property damage.” The court next held that, while damage to other portions of the fitness center would constitute “property damage” caused by an “occurrence,” all such “property damage” fell within the “your work” exclusion.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Patterson, CD Coverage
3 Common Cash Flow Issues That Plague The Construction Industry
August 20, 2019 —
Patrick Hogan, HandleThe construction industry has its fair share of serious cash flow problems. The nature of the industry with long periods between billing and collection, the unpredictability of some business factors, and even the day-to-day decisions of stakeholders have a huge effect on cash reserves.
So how can you protect your business from these cash flow problems? Having a greater awareness of the most common cash flow problems is the key to maintaining your financial stability. Here are some of the top cash flow issues that construction companies need to watch out for.
1. Uncontrolled business growth
The growth of a business as a cash flow problem sounds unintuitive. It is supposed to be a positive thing. So how could it hurt your construction business? When it goes out of control.
During the growth phase, the company will need to expand its operations to meet the increasing demand. This means renting a larger office space, hiring more staff, and buying more inventory, all of which can burn through the company’s cash quickly. The more substantial the level of your growth is, the more your cash flow is affected.
Growth is a good thing, but it is important to be aware of the pitfalls that you could encounter that can lead to cash flow problems. If you are dealing with a volatile growth instead of a stable one, you have to think twice before expanding your operations. A quarter with a large number of construction project deals does not guarantee the same happening in a subsequent quarter.
2. Change of scope or scope creep
The scope, or the statement of work, is the foundation that guides a construction project from start to finish. It specifies all the deliverables needed by the project as agreed by all stakeholders. When the existing requirements are altered, new features are added, or project goals are changed uncontrollably, what happens is scope creep and it can hurt a company’s cash flow.
Construction projects can take a long time before they are finished. A lot of factors can result in changes in the scope. There may be changes in the market strategy, market demand, and other unpredictable variables that make changes in the project requirements a necessity. These changes build up and the project may shift away from what was intended, causing delays, loss of quality, and the rise of planned costs.
One way to prevent scope creep from affecting cash flow significantly is charging a fee for variations of the scope of work. However, having a solid and clear scope baseline is still the best way to combat scope creep. Reminding clients of what you signed up for by referring to the baseline is a good strategy to deal with pushy clients.
3. Payment delays and nonpayment
As previously mentioned, the construction industry tends to have a lengthy period between sending an invoice and collecting payments. And if you are too passive in your collection, clients are more likely to extend pay periods and delay paying you.
Unexpected delays in payment and other payment issues can have a devastating effect on companies that have little to no cash reserves. Without a cash cushion to fall back on, payment issues can threaten the existence of the business itself. If you are unable to manage your receivables, you will not have enough cash to pay the bills, pay employees, and fund your growth.
Payment delays and nonpayment can happen for several reasons. They can be simple like mistakes in the invoicing or the person needed to approve the invoice is unavailable. More serious reasons like a client unsatisfied with your service or, worse, trying to scam you are also possibilities. For these reasons, it is crucial to communicate with clients properly and see if you can agree with a payment structure or pursue legal action.
The construction industry operates slightly differently from other industries. Different projects produce different cash flow issues and require different strategies. By being aware of the top cash flow problems that can hurt your construction business, you will be better equipped in dealing with them in case they happen.
About the Author:
Patrick Hogan is the CEO of Handle, where they build software that helps contractors, subcontractors, and material suppliers secure their lien rights and get paid faster by automating the collection process for unpaid construction invoices. Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick Hogan, CEO, Handle
The 2024 Colorado Legislative Session Promises to be a Busy One for the Construction Industry and its Insurers
January 16, 2024 —
David M. McLain – Colorado Construction LitigationJanuary 10th marked the first day of the 2024 Colorado legislative session. After the pomp and circumstance of opening day, a total of eighty-six bills were introduced. Among them, two impact the construction and insurance industries. First,
House Bill 24-1008 would make general contractors and their subcontractors, which are direct employers of an employee, jointly and severally liable for all debts owed based on wage claims or investigations. Essentially, if HB 24-1008 were to become law, general contractors would become the guarantors of wage payments to their subcontractors’ employees. The second bill,
House Bill 24-1083, would require the Colorado Division of Insurance to conduct a study of construction liability insurance for construction professionals in Colorado and would require that, 14 days prior to closing the sale of a new residence, the seller provide the purchaser and the county clerk and recorder’s office certain information regarding the insurance coverage for the home. In a year when the legislature should be focusing on construction defect reform and affordable housing for Coloradoans, these first two bills will likely drive up the cost of new construction.
House Bill 20-1008, sponsored by Representatives Duran and Froelich, Brown, deGruy Kennedy, Epps, Garcia, Hamrick, Hernandez, Joseph, Lieder, Lindstedt, Mabrey, Mauro, Ricks, Rutinel, Story, Velasco, and Vigil and Senators Danielson and Jaquez Lewis, Exum, Gonzales, Kolker, Marchman, and Sullivan, has been assigned to the House Committee on Business Affairs & Labor but has not yet been scheduled for a hearing. The bill summary states:
For wage claims brought by individuals working in the construction industry, the bill:
- Requires that a subcontractor that receives a written demand for payment forward a copy of the written demand for payment to the general contractor within 3 business days after receipt;
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris, P.A.Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Clean Water Act Cases: Of Irrigation and Navigability
January 06, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThe federal courts have recently decided two significant Clean Water Act (CWA) cases: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler, where the US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia held that the 2015 rulemaking proceeding of EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers redefining the term “Waters of the United States” in the CWA violated the Act as well as the Administrative Procedure Act; and the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, et al. v. Glaser, where the appeals court ruled that the lower court erroneously interpreted a CWA NPDES permitting exception involving agricultural return flows.
An Absence of Navigability: State of Georgia, et al. v. Wheeler
Decided on August 21, 2019, the district court, one of the few courts to grapple with the rule’s compliance with the CWA and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), held that the agencies’ redefinition of the terms “Interstate Waters,” “Tributaries” and “Adjacent Waters” violated the CWA by reading “navigability” out of the new definitions, or by failing to adhere to the Supreme Court’s rulings in the 2005 case of Rapanos v. United States, in particular Justice Kennedy’s concurrence regarding the application of the “significant nexus” in case-by-case adjudications as to whether a particular body of water was covered by the Act. Moreover, some provisions of the rule conflicted with the APA because they were not a logical outgrowth of the rules proposed by the agencies in 2014, and on which they solicited comments, and other determinations were not supported by a reasonable explanation. In addition, without a clear statement from Congress that it supported the rule’s effect of increasing the nature and extent of enhanced federal jurisdiction over waters subject to the CWA, the court was loathe to approve the rule. Accordingly, the rule was remanded to the agencies for additional review consistent with this decision.
This decision is of particular importance as it may well be the first case to subject this new EPA rule—the linchpin of much of EPA’s regulation under the CWA—to extended review. (Other courts have only been asked to enjoin the rule, which involves a different type of review.)
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
General Contractor Cited for Safety Violations after Worker Fatality
September 17, 2015 —
Beverley BevenFlorez-CDJ STAFFThe general contractor of Washington’s SR 520 Floating Bridge Project was cited by the Washington Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) “for serious safety violations following the death of worker Joe Arrants in March.” According to EHS Today, “Arrants was killed when he fell approximately 60 feet to the dock below.”
EHS Today reported that during the investigation, L&I found that the fall protection systems were not used “in accordance with fall protection standards and the manufacturer’s recommendation during forming and stripping operations.” Furthermore, there was no “lifesaving skiff immediately available,” or “a ring buoy with at least 90 feet of line, which would make rescue difficult if a worker fell into the water,” and the contractor did not ensure that the hand tools and equipment were in good, working condition.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Rent Increases During the Coronavirus Emergency Part II: Avoiding Violations Under California’s Anti-Price Gouging Statute
April 06, 2020 —
Dan Schneider - Newmeyer DillionIn my earlier article, Profiting From Fear: What You Need to Know About Price Gouging During the Coronavirus Emergency, I discuss price gouging and how the anti-price gouging statute, California Penal Code 396 (“CPC 396”), protects buyers of goods and services deemed vital and necessary for the health, safety and welfare of consumers. Part II of the article provides guidance to landlords on the parameters applicable to acceptable price increases and focuses attention on the application of CPC 396 to rental housing and related issues.
California Penal Code 396
As it pertains to housing, defined as “any rental housing with an initial lease term of no longer than one year,” price gouging occurs when a landlord increases the rent of an existing or prospective tenant by more than 10 percent of the previously charged or advertised price following an emergency or disaster declaration for a period of 30 days.2 A residential landlord is only allowed to increase rent in excess of 10 percent if “the increase is directly attributable to additional costs for repairs or additions beyond normal maintenance that were amortized over the rental term that caused the rent to be increased greater than 10 percent or that an increase was contractually agreed to by the tenant prior to the proclamation or declaration” (CPC 396(e).) Further, landlords are prohibited from evicting a tenant and then re-renting the property at a rate that the landlord would have been prohibited from charging the evicted tenant under the statute (CPC 396(f).)3
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dan Schneider, Newmeyer DillionMr. Schneider may be contacted at
daniel.schneider@ndlf.com
