Tejon Ranch Co. Announces Settlement of Litigation Related to the Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement
December 05, 2022 —
Tejon Ranch Co.TEJON RANCH, Calif., Nov. 30, 2022 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Tejon Ranch Co. is pleased to announce the resolution of a legal dispute involving the Tejon Ranch Conservancy and the signatories to the 2008 Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement (Agreement), namely, Audubon California, Endangered Habitats League, Natural Resources Defense Council, Planning and Conservation League, and the Sierra Club. The dispute stemmed from the signatories' participation in the Antelope Valley Regional Conservation Strategy (AVRCIS), which was subsequently used by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) to oppose Tejon Ranch Co.'s Centennial development.
The 2008 Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement has been widely hailed as a historic conservation achievement in preserving one of California's great natural and working landscapes. Tejon Ranch Co.'s agreement to conserve 90 percent of its landholdings pursuant to the Agreement is a monumental contribution to conservation in California. Tejon Ranch Co. continues to be a leader in balancing the stewardship of the ranch as a natural treasure for California and achieving economic opportunities for its shareholders. The Company demonstrated that leadership with the actions it took to enforce the terms of the Agreement, which led to this legal dispute.
As part of a settlement agreement, the Conservancy and the signatories dismissed with prejudice the lawsuit they filed. They also acknowledge that the AVRCIS does not contain the "best available scientific data" regarding Tejon Ranch Co.'s landholdings, and further, that they will not use, or support the use of, the AVRCIS or any other similar endeavors, to challenge Tejon Ranch Co.'s development projects and/or any Ranch uses consistent with the Agreement.
In turn, Tejon Ranch Co. released from escrow 50% of the advance payments it withheld under the terms of the Agreement. The remaining funds will be released over a three-year period as matching funds to monies raised by the Conservancy as well as others who participate in Conservancy capital raising programs, after which the remaining funds with be released to the Conservancy to further its mission. These funds are the final fulfilment of Tejon Ranch Co.'s full funding obligations under the Agreement, totaling $11,760,000 over the past 14 years, again demonstrating Tejon Ranch Co.'s commitment to fulfilling the implementation of the 2008 Tejon Ranch Conservation and Land Use Agreement.
All parties are glad to put this dispute behind them and move forward in a cooperative manner to achieve the goals envisioned in the historic 2008 Agreement.
About Tejon Ranch Co.
Tejon Ranch Co. (NYSE: TRC) is a diversified real estate development and agribusiness company, whose principal asset is its 270,000-acre land holding located approximately 60 miles north of Los Angeles and 30 miles south of Bakersfield. More information about Tejon Ranch Co. can be found on the Company's website at www.tejonranch.com.
Forward Looking Statements
This press release contains forward-looking statements, including without limitation statements regarding commitments of the parties under the settlement agreement and the achievement of certain goals related to Tejon Ranch Co.'s landholdings. These forward-looking statements are not a guarantee of future results, performance, or achievements, are subject to assumptions and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other important factors that could cause the actual results, performance, or achievements to differ materially from those implied by such forward-looking statements. These risks, uncertainties and important factors include, but are not limited to, the ability and willingness of the parties to the Settlement Agreement to take the actions (or refrain from taking the actions) specified in the Settlement Agreement, and the risks described in the section entitled "Risk Factors" in our annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Erasing Any Doubt: Arizona FED Actions Do Not Accrue Until Formal Demand for Possession is Tendered
July 13, 2017 —
Bob Henry - Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogClearing up any lingering confusion, in Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC v. Woods, 767 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 4 (June 22, 2017), the Arizona Court of Appeals confirmed that residential forcible entry and detainer actions in Arizona accrue for statute of limitations purposes when a party entitled to possession makes a formal demand for return of possession not when the party could have made a demand for return of possession.
In Carrington, the borrowers (the Woodses) remained in property that they had acquired in 2008 but then lost to foreclosure several years later. The original lender obtained title to the property at a trustee’s sale on February 16, 2010, but did not take any action to remove the Woodses at that time. Title to the property was then transferred through a series of transactions over the next six years. Ultimately, Carrington acquired the title and, in 2016, sent a formal “Notice to Vacate” the premises to the Woodses. After the Woodses failed to timely vacate pursuant to the demand, Carrington initiated an FED action to evict them from the property.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bob Henry, Snell & WilmerMr. Henry may be contacted at
bhenry@swlaw.com
Under Privette Doctrine, A Landowner Delegates All Responsibility For Workplace Safety to its Independent Contractor, and therefore Owes No Duty to Remedy or Adopt Measures to Protect Against Known Hazards
September 29, 2021 —
Krsto Mijanovic, Jeffrey C. Schmid & John M. Wilkerson - Haight Brown & BonesteelIn Gonzalez v. Mathis (2021 WL 3671594) (“Gonzalez”), the Supreme Court of California held that a landowner generally owes no duty to an independent contractor or its workers to remedy or adopt other measures to protect them against known hazards on the premises. The Court applied the Privette doctrine which establishes a presumption that a landowner generally delegates all responsibility for workplace safety to its independent contractor. (See generally Privette v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 689; SeaBright Ins. Co. v. US Airways, Inc. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 590.) As such, the independent contractor is responsible for ensuring that the work can be performed safely despite a known hazard on the worksite, even where the contractor and its workers are unable to take any reasonable safety precautions to avoid or protect themselves from the known hazard.
In Gonzalez, the landowner, Mathis, had hired an independent contractor, Gonzalez, to clean a skylight on his roof. To access the skylight, Gonzalez needed to utilize a narrow path between the edge of the roof and a parapet wall. While walking along this path, Gonzalez slipped and fell to the ground, sustaining serious injuries. Gonzalez alleged this accident was caused by several dangerous conditions on the roof, including a slippery surface, a lack of tie-off points to attach a safety harness, and a lack of a guardrail. Gonzalez was aware of all of these hazards prior to the accident.
Reprinted courtesy of
Krsto Mijanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel,
Jeffrey C. Schmid, Haight Brown & Bonesteel and
John M. Wilkerson, Haight Brown & Bonesteel
Mr. Mijanovic may be contacted at kmijanovic@hbblaw.com
Mr. Schmid may be contacted at jschmid@hbblaw.com
Mr. Wilkerson may be contacted at jwilkerson@hbblaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Industry Standard and Sole Negligence Defenses Can’t Fix a Defect
June 14, 2021 —
Lian Skaf - The Subrogation StrategistStrict products liability cases have been the subject of much fluctuation in the Pennsylvania courts over the last few years. Utilizing hope created by the courts in recent strict liability cases, defendants have tried to revive defenses based on meeting industry standards and the plaintiff’s contributory negligence. Recently, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania tempered that hope with limitations of how far strict liability defenses can extend.
In Sullivan v. Werner Co., No. 3086 EDA 2019, 2021 Pa. Super. LEXIS 210, an appellate panel of the Superior Court reviewed the lower court’s decision to exclude evidence of industry standards and of the plaintiff’s negligence in a trial that resulted in a $2.5 million verdict for the plaintiff. Upholding the decision of the lower court, the court found that the proffered evidence was within the discretion of the court to exclude.
In Sullivan, Michael Sullivan (Sullivan) was working as a union carpenter at a renovation project for a local school. He and his apprentice were installing exterior sheathing to the outdoor walls. In order to install the sheathing, Sullivan had to use a scaffold. He put together a new SRS-72 scaffold manufactured by Werner Company (Werner) that his foreman bought at Lowe’s Companies, Inc. (Lowe’s) and used the scaffold during the course of his work. While on the scaffold, Sullivan fell through and crashed to the ground. He suffered permanent injuries as a result of the incident.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Lian Skaf, White and Williams LLPMr. Skaf may be contacted at
skafl@whiteandwilliams.com
Quick Note: Independent Third-Party Spoliation Of Evidence Claim
June 18, 2019 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesIn an earlier posting I discussed the difference between first-party spoliation of evidence and third-party spoliation of evidence.
There is NO independent cause of action for first-party spoliation of evidence because that can be dealt with directly in the underlying lawsuit. This deals with the assertion that an actual party to a lawsuit spoiled evidence.
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
Still Going, After All This Time: the Sacketts, EPA and the Clean Water Act
September 13, 2021 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn August 16, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the Idaho property of Michael and Chantell Sackett was a regulated wetlands under the then-controlling 1977 EPA rules defining “waters of the United States,” and that the Sacketts dredging and filling of their property was subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or EPA. EPA’s case, as it has been for many years, was based on 2008 EPA and Corps inspection reports and Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test as the controlling opinion in the 2006 Supreme Court case, Rapanos v. United States. The Sacketts’ argument was that the text of the Clean Water Act, as interpreted by Justice Scalia and three other Justices, was controlling, but for several years, the Ninth Circuit has relied on Justice Kennedy’s opinion in these CWA controversies. The court’s opinion expressed considerable sympathy for the Sacketts as they negotiated the thicket of EPA’s regulatory processes, but it could not disregard circuit precedent. A few years ago, the Supreme Court ruled, in a unanimous decision, that EPA’s then extant administrative compliance orders were arbitrary and capricious. (See Sackett v. US, 566 US 120 (2015).) After that decision, the case was remanded to the federal district court, where it lingered for several more years.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
Can General Contractors Make Subcontractors Pay for OSHA Violations?
March 05, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorOSHA has long held the opinion that general contractors may be held liable for subcontractor’s OSHA violations and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, overseeing the Midwest, has agreed since 2009. To combat this risk, general contractors would be well served to incorporate targeted indemnity provisions into their subcontracts that require subcontractors to pay for all claims and costs associated with subcontractor caused OSHA violations.
OSHA’s Multi-Employer Policy
OSHA’s Multi-Employer Policy, a/k/a OSHA Instruction CPL 02-00-124, allows OSHA to cite multiple employers at a single worksite for creating a hazard, or for failing to prevent or correct a hazard, even if their own workers are not exposed to the hazard. A ‘‘controlling’’ or ‘‘correcting’’ employer is liable for hazards that it did not take ‘‘reasonable care’’ to detect and prevent.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Craig Martin, Lamson, Dugan and Murray, LLPMr. Martin may be contacted at
cmartin@ldmlaw.com
Florida Self-Insured Retention Satisfaction and Made Whole Doctrine
March 11, 2014 —
Scott Patterson – CD CoverageIntervest Construction of Jax, Inc. v. General Fidelity Insurance Co., * So.2d * (Fla. 2014), the issue was whether the insured general contractor could satisfy the SIR in its CGL policy with funds it received from the insurer of a subcontractor in settlement of the general contractor’s contractual indemnity claim against that subcontractor. ICI was the general contractor for a residence sold to Ferrin. Several years after completion, Ferrin suffered injuries in a fall while using attic stairs installed by ICI’s subcontractor Custom Cutting. Ferrin sued ICI but not Custom Cutting. ICI was insured by General Fidelity with a $1M SIR. ICI sought contractual indemnity from Custom Cutting. The Ferrin suit was ultimately settled for $1.6M. Custom Cutting’s CGL insurer paid $1M to ICI to resolve ICI’s contractual indemnity claim. Using the $1M paid on behalf of Custom Cutting and $300K of its own funds, ICI paid $1.3M to Ferrin. General Fidelity paid the remaining $300K with an agreement with ICI that each was entitled to seek reimbursement of $300K from the other. ICI filed suit in Florida state court. General Fidelity removed to federal court. The Eleventh Circuit certified the relevant questions to the Supreme Court of Florida.
The Florida Supreme Court first held that the General Fidelity SIR allowed ICI to satisfy the SIR through indemnification payments received from a third party. While the SIR provision stated that it must be satisfied by the insured, it did not include any language proscribing the source of the funds used by the insured to satisfy the SIR. The court distinguished other decisions where the SIR endorsement expressly stated that payments by others, including other insurers, could not satisfy the SIR. The court also relied on the fact that ICI “hedged its retained risk” by paying for its entitlement to contractual indemnification from its subcontractor years prior to purchasing the General Fidelity policy.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Scott Patterson, CD Coverage
