Suing a Local Government in Land Use Cases – Part 1 – Substantive Due Process
February 16, 2017 —
Wally Zimolong – Supplemental ConditionsBecause of my personal political persuasions (pro-freedom) and success in litigating cases against the government and other media about those cases businesses frequently approach me about bringing claims against local governments and agencies for interfering with their Constitutional rights. Actions by local government agencies that could give rise to a Constitutional violation include: treating a developer’s project differently than a similar project, revoking a previously issued zoning or building permit, disqualifying a contractor from bidding on a government contract, retaliating against a business owner for speaking out against the local agency or one of its members, or unnecessarily delaying the issuance of a permit. The Constitutional rights most typically implicated in these cases are those guaranteed by the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution. However, the 1st Amendment is also frequently implicated.
Suing a local government agency for violating your Constitutional rights is not easy. However, the federal statute under which the cases are brought, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, provides for the award of a successful plaintiff’s attorneys fees. This is true even if the Judge or jury awards a mere $1 is damages. Moreover, sometimes there can be a strategic value in the litigation.
This is the first in a series of blog posts exploring claims available to businesses harassed by local government agencies and officials and the challenges inherent in successfully bringing those claims. We will start with a claim for a substantive due process violation.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Wally Zimolong, Zimolong LLCMr. Zimolong may be contacted at
wally@zimolonglaw.com
Fannie Mae Says Millennials Are Finally Leaving Their Parents' Basements
December 17, 2015 —
Julie Verhage – BloombergParents, rejoice. Your offspring may finally be moving out of the family basement.
A new report (PDF) from Fannie Mae, the U.S. government-backed mortgage company, suggests that the millennial generation is getting a move on.
"According to the ACS [Census Bureau’s American Community Survey], the number of homeowners aged 25-34 fell by more than 250,000 in each year between 2007 and 2012, but has declined by less than 100,000 annually since then," Fannie Mae said. "In fact, the decline between 2013 and 2014 was statistically insignificant, the first indication of stability in the number of young homeowners since the onset of the Great Recession." So while the number of homeowners in that age range is still on the decline, the trend looks poised for a reversal, and Fannie Mae said it won't take much to see positive growth in millennial homeownership in the near future.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Julie Verhage, Bloomberg
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT THE RIGHT TO REPAIR ACT (SB800) IS THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR CONSTRUCTION DEFECT CLAIMS NOT INVOLVING PERSONAL INJURIES WHETHER OR NOT THE UNDERLYING DEFECTS GAVE RISE TO ANY PROPERTY DAMAGE in McMillin Albany LL
January 24, 2018 —
Chapman, Glucksman, Dean, Roeb, & BargerRICHARD H. GLUCKSMAN, ESQ.
GLENN T. BARGER, ESQ.
JON A. TURIGLIATTO, ESQ.
DAVID A. NAPPER, ESQ.
The Construction Industry finally has its answer. The California Supreme Court ruled that the Right to Repair Act (SB800) is the exclusive remedy for construction defect claims alleged to have resulted from economic loss, property damage, or both. Our office has closely tracked the matter since its infancy. The California Supreme Court’s holding resolves the split of authority presented by the Fifth Appellate District’s holding in
McMillin Albany LLC v. Superior Court (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1132, which outright rejected the Fourth Appellate District’s holding in
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove LLC (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 98.
By way of background, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held in
Liberty Mutual that compliance with SB800’s pre-litigation procedures prior to initiating litigation is only required for defect claims involving violations of SB800’s building standards that have not yet resulted in actual property damage. Where damage has occurred, a homeowner may initiate litigation under common law causes of action without first complying with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in SB800. Two years later, the Fifth District Court of Appeal, in
McMillin Albany, held that the California Legislature intended that all claims arising out of defects in new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003 are subject to the standards and requirements of the Right to Repair Act, including specifically the requirement that notice be provided to the builder prior to filing a lawsuit. Thus, the Court of Appeal ruled that SB800 is the exclusive remedy for all defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003.
After extensive examination of the text and legislative history of the Right to Repair Act, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling that SB800 preempts common law claims for property damage. The Complaint at issue alleged construction defects causing both property damage and economic loss. After filing the operative Complaint, the homeowners dismissed the SB800 cause of action and took the position that the Right to Repair Act was adopted to provide a remedy for construction defects causing only economic loss and therefore SB800 did not alter preexisting common law remedies in cases where actual property damage or personal injuries resulted. The builder maintained that SB800 and its pre-litigation procedures still applied in this case where actually property damages were alleged to have occurred.
The Supreme Court found that the text and legislative history reflect a clear and unequivocal intent to supplant common law negligence and strict product liability actions with a statutory claim under the Right to Repair Act. Specifically the text reveals “…an intent to create not merely
a remedy for construction defects but
the remedy.” Additionally certain clauses set forth in SB800 “…evinces a clear intent to displace, in whole or in part, existing remedies for construction defects.” Not surprisingly, the Court confirmed that personal injury damages are expressly not recoverable under SB800, which actually assisted the Court in analyzing the intent of the statutory scheme. The Right to Repair Act provides that construction defect claims not involving personal injury will be treated the same procedurally going forward whether or not the underlying defects gave rise to any property damage.
The Supreme Court further found that the legislative history of SB800 confirms that displacement of parts of the existing remedial scheme was “…no accident, but rather a considered choice to reform construction defect litigation.” Further emphasizing how the legislative history confirms what the statutory text reflects, the Supreme Court offered the following summary: “the Act was designed as a broad reform package that would substantially change existing law by displacing some common law claims and substituting in their stead a statutory cause of action with a mandatory pre-litigation process.” As a result, the Supreme Court ordered that the builder is entitled to a stay and the homeowners are required to comply with the pre-litigation procedures set forth in the Right to Repair Act before their lawsuit may proceed.
The seminal ruling by the California Supreme Court shows great deference to California Legislature and the “major stakeholders on all sides of construction defect litigation” who participated in developing SB800. A significant win for builders across the Golden State, homeowners unequivocally must proceed via SB800 for all construction defect claims arising out of new residential construction sold on or after January 1, 2003. We invite you to contact us should you have any questions.
Reprinted courtesy of Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger attorneys
Richard Glucksman,
Glenn Barger,
Jon Turigliatto and
David Napper
Mr. Glucksman may be contacted at rglucksman@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Barger may be contacted at gbarger@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Turgliatto may be contacted at jturigliatto@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
World-Famous Architects Design $480,000 Gazebos for Your Backyard
December 10, 2015 —
Katya Kazakina – BloombergStar architects known for dreaming up museums, concert halls, and stadiums are aiming to bring high design into a much more pedestrian segment: prefabricated, mixed-use structures.
If you don't want to spring for one of Zaha Hadid's $50 million penthouses, you can now have your own outdoor dining pavilion by the Pritzker Prize winner. Price tag: $480,000.
Made with wood, stainless steel, and aluminum, the curvy piece comprises a platform and a sprawling, perforated canopy, resembling a giant mushroom straight out of Alice in Wonderland. (This is a Hadid, after all.) It will be made in an edition of 24.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Katya Kazakina, Bloomberg
BWB&O ranks as a 2025 Best Law Firm by Best Lawyers®
December 10, 2024 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is honored to announce the firm has been recognized for its fifth consecutive year in the 2025 edition of Best Law Firms® and is ranked by Best Lawyers® regionally in three practice areas. To read the publication, please click here.
Metropolitan Tier 1
Las Vegas: Litigation – Construction
Orange County: Litigation – Construction
Metropolitan Tier 2
Orange County: Family Law
San Diego: Litigation – Real Estate
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Dolores Montoya, Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
FAA Seeks Largest Fine Yet on Drones in Near-Miss Crackdown
October 21, 2015 —
Alan Levin – BloombergThe U.S. Federal Aviation Administration is proposing the largest fine to date against a drone operator as the agency cracks down on the booming use of unmanned aircraft in congested skies over populated areas.
The FAA said Tuesday it was recommending a $1.9 million penalty against SkyPan International Inc., which made 65 drone flights from 2012 to 2014 in airspace above cities including New York. The company uses drones to photograph the prospective views from Manhattan high rises under construction, according to its website.
The action comes as the FAA has struggled to enforce existing rules on drones and attempts to finalize the first regulations allowing small unmanned vehicles to operate commercially. Drone sightings by pilots, including close-calls with airliners, have surged from only a handful a month last year to over 100 per month.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Alan Levin, Bloomberg
Trial Court's Award of Contractual Fees to Public Adjuster Overturned
June 03, 2019 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiA judgment awarding the public adjuster his compensation for work performed under contract was remanded for further proceedings by the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals. Joslin v Ota Camp-Makibaka Ass'n, 2019 Haw. App. LEXIS 155 (Haw. Ct. App. April 5, 2019).
A fire destroyed the homeowners' residence on September 19, 2013. The property was subject to the bylaws of the Association of Apartment Owners of Ota Camp. The Association had a policy with Alterra Excess & Surplus Insurance Company and submitted a claim for all units damaged in the fire. The Association's adjuster came the following day to inspect the site.
Separately, Robert Joslin, public adjuster, entered a contract with the homeowners to adjust their claim in exchange for twelve-percent of any insurance proceeds obtained. Over the next several months Joslin pursued insurance proceeds from Alterra on behalf of the homeowners. On December 18, 2013, Joslin filed a complaint with the Insurance Division arguing that Alterra had failed to timely make payments on the claim.
On February 10, 2014, Alterra's third party administrator, Engle Martin & Associates, sent a check to Joslin for $231,940 made out to the Association, the homeowners and Joslin.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Tred R. Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak HastertMr. Eyerly may be contacted at
te@hawaiilawyer.com
$1.9 Trillion Stimulus: Five Things Employers Need to Know
March 15, 2021 —
Matthew C. Lewis & Rana Ayazi - Payne & FearsOn March 11, 2021, President Biden signed H.R.1319 - American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“Rescue Plan”) into law—a $1.9 trillion stimulus bill. Here are five things every employer should know about the bill.
1. FFCRA Tax Credits Have Been Extended
The Rescue Plan extends the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) tax credit provisions—again—through September 30, 2021. (The ability to recoup the cost of FFCRA leave was previously extended in December 2020 through March 31, 2021: See related article here. Employers that opt to voluntarily provide FFCRA leave will be credited 100 percent for all qualifying wages paid under the FFCRA.
Any employer already providing FFCRA-like leave to employees under state, county, and/or local paid sick leave ordinances, especially if their business is located in California (e.g.,
Cal/OSHA’s COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards) should consider opting to voluntarily provide FFCRA-compliant leave, as by doing so they may be able at least partially to recoup the cost of leave they are otherwise already required to provide.
Reprinted courtesy of
Matthew C. Lewis, Payne & Fears and
Rana Ayazi, Payne & Fears
Mr. Lewis may be contacted at mcl@paynefears.com
Ms. Ayazi may be contacted at ra@paynefears.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
