Department Of Labor Recovers $724K In Back Wages, Damages For 255 Workers After Phoenix Contractor Denied Overtime Pay, Falsified Records
February 01, 2023 —
U.S. Department of LaborPHOENIX – The U.S. Department of Labor has recovered $724,082 in back wages and damages for 255 employees of an electrical contractor in Phoenix who denied them overtime wages and falsified records.
An investigation by the department’s
Wage and Hour Division found IES Residential – a subsidiary of one of the nation’s largest electrical, HVAC and plumbing, solar and cable installation contractors – capped employees’ overtime at eight hours despite some employees working up to 60 hours in a workweek.
The division also learned the employer told workers – some who arrived as early as 4:45 a.m. and worked as late as 7 p.m. to record 40 hours or less on their timesheets unless their overtime was pre-approved. When IES Residential did approve, the employer limited overtime to eight hours per week even when employees worked as many as 23 hours of overtime in a workweek.
“The U.S. Department of Labor will hold employers accountable for wage theft, particularly in cases like this one, where IES Residential deliberately attempted to evade the law by instructing employees to falsify timesheets to avoid paying overtime wages,” said Wage and Hour Division District Director Eric Murray in Phoenix. “Employers who fail to pay workers their full wages may face costly consequences, including penalties for intentional acts to cover-up their violations.”
In fiscal year 2022, the division
recovered nearly $32.9 million in back wages for 17,127 construction industry workers. The division completed more than 2,200 investigations in FY22 in the construction industry and by wages recovered, the industry ranks second among the division’s low wage, high violation industries.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
The Leaning Tower of San Francisco
January 24, 2018 —
Dave Suggs - CDJ STAFFThe Millennium Tower located at 301 Mission Street in San Francisco, California opened in 2009 and is fifty-eight stories high. It is comprised of expensive apartments with price tags in the millions. “Yet for all its curb appeal, the building has, quite literally one fundamental problem: it’s sinking into mud and tilting towards its neighbors” reports John Wetheim of CBS News in the
60 Minutes segment about the condition of the tower “San Francisco’s Leaning Tower of Lawsuits.”
In the Tower’s basement along columns that protrude from the foundation of the building there are stress gauges lining the walls illustrating cracks with slow growth which is cause for concern. The tower is tilting a total of 14 inches toward the northwest and has sunk 17 inches so far. Petar Marinkovic, an engineer for the European Space Agency estimates that the tower is sinking 1.5 to 2 inches per year.
Jerry Cauthen, a local engineer, weighs in on what he believes is the cause of the sinking and leaning; it was built from concrete instead of steel. “Concrete is often cheaper. And it’s just as good, but it is a lot heavier. And so you got to design your foundation and your sub-surface to support that higher weight.” A local geotechnical engineer, Larry Karp agrees stating that the foundation of a building of this size and weight should be on solid rock (bedrock). The Millennium Tower is sitting on layers debris from the 1906 earthquake, a gold rush landfill, as well as clay, mud, and sand.
There over 20 parties involved in the Millennium Tower lawsuits so far. Solutions to “fix” the tower’s issues range from removing 20 stories from the top of the building to perpetually freezing the ground beneath the building. There are also ongoing mediation talks to determine the feasibility of drilling down to bedrock under a building where a thousand residents are still upstairs.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Insured's Claim for Water Damage Dismissed with Leave to Amend
August 12, 2024 —
Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law HawaiiThe court granted the insurer's motion to dismiss the insured's claim for water damage under a homeowners' policy, but granted leave to amend. Thompson v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98486 (C.D. Cal. June 3, 2024).
The insureds' first amended complaint alleged they "suffered a sudden and accidental water loss below their slab in their home." A plumber hired by the insureds discovered "a copper pipe burst inside a structural concrete footing between a manifold in the living room and the water heater." The insureds notified their insurer, State Farm.
Claim adjuster Andrea Acevedo conducted a visual inspection. The complaint alleged she did not "inspect or view the pipe, or have a testing conducted on the pipe." Acevedo sent a letter denying the insureds' claim based upon her finding that "because the loss was caused by a slab leak, there is no coverage available for the loss." The letter explained that the hot water supply line under the home failed due to wear, tear, deterioration and/or electrolysis. The predominant cause of loss to the failed pipe was due to one or a combination of rust, electrolysis, corrosion, wear, tear and/or deterioration. The policy did not cover water damage caused by water from below the surface of the ground. Further coverage for wear, tear, deterioration, rot, mold, maintenance, water from below the surface of the ground and a continuous or repeated seepage or leakage of water was excluded.
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
Defective Stairways can be considered a Patent Construction Defect in California
September 24, 2014 —
William M. Kaufman – Construction Lawyers BlogStairs are not safe! At least the Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District of California doesn’t think so.
A rail station in Los Angeles was completed by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) in 1993. The rail station was part of the development of the Southern California Rapid Transit District Metro Rail Project. In 2011, the plaintiff fell on a stairway at the station. In August 2012, Plaintiff sued the MTA for dangerous condition of public property, statutory liability, and negligence. Among other defects, plaintiff alleged the banister of the stairwell was “too low” and the stairwell “too small” given the number, age, and volume of people habitually entering and exiting the rail station. In addition, plaintiff alleged that MTA “failed to provide adequate safeguards against the known dangerous condition by, among other acts and omissions, failing to properly design, construct, supervise, inspect and repair the Premises causing the same to be unsafe and defective for its intended purposes.” MTA, in turn, cross-complained against Hampton- the entity that provided design and construction services at the station.
Hampton demurred to the first amended cross-complaint, asserting a four year statute of limitations defense pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 337.1, claiming the alleged deficiencies were patent defects. On September 11, 2013, the trial court overruled the demurrer finding that the defect was not patent. Hampton appealed.
The appellate court overruled the trial court’s ruling and in fact, granted Hampton’s writ of mandate and even directed the trial court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend! (Delon Hampton & Associates v. Sup. Ct. (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority) (Cal. App. Second Dist., Div. 3; June 23, 2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 250, [173 Cal.Rptr.3d 407].)
The appellate court found that the purpose of section 337.1 is to “provide a final point of termination, to proctect some groups from extended liability.” A “patent deficiency” has been defined as a deficiency which is apparent by reasonable inspection. See Tomko Woll Group Architects, Inc. v. Superior Court (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1326, 1336. The court found a patent defect can be discovery by the kind of inspection made in the exercise of ordinary care and prudence, whereas a latent defect is hidden and would not be discovered by a reasonably careful inspection. See Preston v. Goldman (1986) 42 Cal.3d 108, 123. The test to determine whether a construction defect is patent is an objective test that asks “whether the average consumer, during the course of a reasonable inspection, would discover the defect…” See Creekbridge Townhome Owners Assn., Inc. v. C. Scott Whitten, Inc. (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 251, 256.
Mr. Kaufman may be contacted at wkaufman@lockhartpark.com, and you may visit the firm's website at www.lockhartpark.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
William M. Kaufman, Lockhart Park LP
California Builders’ Right To Repair Is Alive
March 19, 2014 —
David J. Byassee - Ulich & Terry LLPThe California Supreme Court surprised everyone on December 11, 2013 when it denied Brookfield Homes’ request for review of the ruling in the case of Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brookfield Crystal Cove, LLC (2014) 219 Cal.App.4th 98, which was decided by the Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District Division Three (Orange County). In that case the Court of Appeal held that the Right to Repair Act aka SB800 is not the exclusive remedy for a homeowner seeking damages for construction defects that have resulted in property damage. Under the ruling, homeowners may choose to sue builders under common law theories of liability such as strict liability and negligence, in addition to liability under the Act. This ruling made homeowners' compliance with the prelitigation requirements of the Act optional and thereby put builders' “right to repair” in jeopardy. The ruling undermined the expectations of California's homebuilders who, for the past decade, understood that their liability is limited by the Act and that they have a right to repair.
Since the Liberty Mutual case was handed down, the topic has become a hotbed item with several divisions of the Court of Appeal. On February 19, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Three (Los Angeles County) issued a ruling against Premier Homes in the case of Burch v. Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 159 that, without independent analysis, simply adopted the holding in the Liberty Mutual case.
But on February 21, 2014, the Court of Appeal for the Second Appellate District Division Four (Los Angeles County) ruled in the case of KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v.Superior Court 2014 Cal.App.LEXIS 167 that a homeowner's failure to give the builder an opportunity to inspect and repair a construction defect excused the builder's liability under the Act. Additionally, the Court of Appeal went out of its way to state it had ruled earlier in that case that the Act is the exclusive remedy.
The various rulings lay a foundation for ultimate intervention by the California Supreme Court. In the meantime, these opposing cases will be cited by counsel for homeowners and builders alike for opposing positions as they continue to navigate construction defect disputes.
Mr. Byassee is a strategic litigator specializing in representation of builders and developers. For more information regarding dispute resolution procedures under SB800, Mr. Byassee may be contacted at (949) 250-9797 or by email at dbyassee@ut-law.com.
Published courtesy of
David J. Byassee, Ulich & Terry LLP
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Australian Developer Denies Building Problems Due to Construction Defects
June 15, 2011 —
CDJ STAFFThe Sunland Group, the developer, is objecting to claims that it is responsible for corrosion damage in a residential building in Gold Coast, Australia, as reported in the Courier & Mail. Residents of Q1, the world’s tallest residential tower, are suing the developer, claiming that defects and corrosion “compromise the long-term durability and appearance of” the six-year-old building.
The developer has not only denied that there are defects in the building, but has also stated that the construction contract “did not warrant that the construction would be defects-free.” Sunland claimed that corrosion was due to the homeowners association having “failed to carry out the maintenance requirements.”
Repair of the building is expected to cost millions of dollars. Sunland denies that it should pay any of that.
Read the full story…
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Steven Cvitanovic Recognized in JD Supra's 2017 Readers' Choice Awards
April 05, 2017 —
Steven M. Cvitanovic - Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPJD Supra named Partner Steven Cvitanovic among the Top 10 Authors in the construction industry in its 2017 Readers’ Choice Awards, which recognizes the excellence and achievement of firms and authors who published their substantive work on JD Supra in 2016.
JD Supra editors chose the 25 industries and topics covered in these awards for their timeliness as well as their proven, ongoing importance. In each category, one firm and ten authors were recognized for consistently achieving the highest readership and engagement for all of 2016.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Steven M. Cvitanovic, Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLPMr. Cvitanovic may be contacted at
scvitanovic@hbblaw.com
DC Circuit Approves, with Some Misgivings, FERC’s Approval of the Atlantic Sunrise Natural Gas Pipeline Extension
December 02, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit decided the case of Allegheny Defense Project, et al. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on August 2, 2019. In a Per Curiam opinion, the court denied petitions challenging the Commission’s orders permitting the Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company’s expansion of an existing natural gas pipeline which extends from northern Pennsylvania across the Carolinas into Alabama. The expansion is called the “Atlantic Sunrise Project.” In February 2017, FERC approved the expansion, and denied various petitions, filed by environmental organizations and affected landowners, who then challenged the decision in the DC Circuit. However, the court concluded, on the basis of the administrative record, that these challenges “cannot surmount the deferential standards of agency review and binding DC Circuit precedent.” Under the law, the Commission must consider whether the projected pipeline project meets a market need, and whether the public benefits outweigh the harms. If both criteria are satisfied, FERC will, as in this instance, issue a certificate authorizing the pipeline’s construction, and that certificate also empowers the certificate holder to exercise eminent domain authority under to the Natural Gas Act when necessary. It was the latter consequence of the FERC’s determinations that caused several Pennsylvania landowners to file their objections with the Commission and seek to stay construction.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
