AB 3018: Amendments to the Skilled and Trained Workforce Requirements on California Public Projects
February 18, 2019 —
Alex R. Bagdassarian & Nathan A. Cohen - Peckar & AbramsonWhat California Contractors Need To Know About AB 3018
California contractors used to face limited consequences for non-compliance with the state’s skilled and trained workforce requirements on public works projects. A sea-change to the statutory landscape went into effect on January 1, 2019 as a result of Assembly Bill No. 3018 (“AB 3018”).1 The Code re-defines what constitutes a skilled/trained workforce by eliminating existing exemptions, strengthens monthly reporting guidelines and agency oversight, and empowers the Labor Commissioner and public agencies with enforcement tools that include monetary penalties and debarment. Contractors who fail to institute a program to comply with AB 3018’s reporting requirements do so at their peril.
What Does The 30% Requirement Mean?
Previously, in order to comply with the skilled workforce requirements2, 30% of skilled journeypersons had to be graduates of an apprenticeship program, except for certain listed trades which were exempt from the apprenticeship percentage requirement3. AB 3018 eliminates this exception for the listed occupations and requires 30% of all trades to be comprised of apprenticeship program graduates.
Reprinted courtesy of
Alex R. Baghdassarian, Peckar & Abramson and
Nathan A. Cohen, Peckar & Abramson
Mr. Baghdassarian may be contacted at Abaghdassarian@pecklaw.com
Mr. Cohen may be contacted at ncohen@pecklaw.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Top 10 Lessons Learned from a Construction Attorney
February 18, 2015 —
Craig Martin – Construction Contractor AdvisorI have had the pleasure of working with
Cordell Parvin, who in his earlier career was a preeminent construction attorney, and now,
coaches attorneys. Cordell has shared countless construction guides and presentations with me over the years, for which I am extremely grateful. Below is Cordell’s Lesson’s Learned list, that is as true today as when he drafted it years ago.
1. Contracts and owners are not all alike. Some are fairer than others. Some create greater risks of making the budget if we encounter changes, delays and impacts. We should appreciate the risks before bidding and not underestimate indirect costs of staff to deal with these situations.
2. It is important to have a thorough understanding of the Contract Administration requirements of complex contracts. Identifying specifically what must be done when changes, delays and differing site conditions are encountered is one way to establish the understanding.
3. If a project ever ends up in court, every letter, note, e-mail and memo is evidence and will be taken out of context by the opposing lawyer. Recording every mistake, miscalculation, problem or lesson learned during construction of the project will come back to haunt you.
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
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
New Evidence Code Requires Attorney to Obtain Written Acknowledgement that the Confidential Nature of Mediation has been Disclosed to the Client
January 02, 2019 —
Steven J. Pearse, Esq. & David A. Napper, Esq. – Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & BargerSenate Bill 954: MEDIATION CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLOSURES.
California regards mediation as a beneficial process for parties to resolve disputes in an expeditious and economical fashion. To assure open and candid participation, there is a longstanding policy in California to maintain confidentiality during the mediation process. However, the mediation confidentiality statutes have prevented some clients from suing their·attorneys for alleged malpractice that occurred during the mediation process. (see Cassel v. Superior Court, (2011) 51 Cal.4th 113). Senate Bill ("SB") 954, was recently passed and thereafter approved by the Governor on September 11, 2018 to address this concern.
SB 954, which will amend California Evidence Code section 1122 and add California Evidence Code section 1129, requires that an attorney representing a client participating in a mediation or a mediation consultation provide that client with a written disclosure and acknowledgement containing the mediation confidentiality restrictions as set forth in the California Evidence Code.
This written disclosure and acknowledgement requirement does not apply to class or representative actions. Additionally, the failure of an attorney to follow the new requirement will not be a basis to set aside an agreement prepared in the course of, or pursuant to, a mediation. Any communication, document, or writing related to an attorney's compliance with the disclosure requirement will not be considered confidential and may be used in a disciplinary proceeding if the communication, document, or writing does not disclose anything said or done or any admission made in the course of the mediation.
California Evidence Code section 1129 sets forth the exact language that must be used in the disclosure. It even informs the client that all communications between the client and the attorney made in preparation for a mediation, or during a mediation, are confidential and cannot be disclosed or used (except in extremely limited circumstances), even if the client later decides to sue the attorney for malpractice because of something that happens during the mediation.
The new disclosure requirement will allow mediation to maintain the confidentiality that encourages open and candid communications during the process while ensuring that before clients agree to mediation that the clients are made aware of how that confidentiality can potentially impact them. SB 954, will take effect on January 1,2019.
Reprinted courtesy of
Stephen J. Pearce, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger and
David A. Napper, Chapman Glucksman Dean Roeb & Barger
Mr. Pearce may be contacted at dnapper@cgdrblaw.com
Mr. Napper may be contacted at jpaster@HuntonAK.com
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
California Supreme Court Upholds Precondemnation Procedures
September 22, 2016 —
Patrick J. Paul – Snell & Wilmer Real Estate Litigation BlogOn July 21, 2016, the California Supreme Court in Property Reserve v. Superior Court upheld the state’s precondemnation entry and testing statutes provided they were reformed to allow impacted property owners the ability to have a jury trial to determine damages associated with such entry and testing.
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) sought to construct water conveyance facilities that would require significant property condemnation. As part of this process, DWR further sought to investigate the environmental and geological suitability of more than 150 private properties considered for the conveyance route.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Patrick J. Paul, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Paul may be contacted at
ppaul@swlaw.com
California Supreme Court Addresses “Good Faith” Construction Disputes Under Prompt Payment Laws
June 06, 2018 —
Garret Murai - California Construction Law BlogIt’s been a rollercoaster. But the ride appears to be over.
In United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co., Case No. S231549 (May 14, 2018), the California Supreme Court addressed whether a direct contractor can withhold payment from a subcontractor based on the “good faith dispute” exception of the state’s prompt payment laws if the “dispute” concerns any dispute between the parties or whether the dispute must be directly relevant to the specific payment that would otherwise be due.
California’s Prompt Payment Laws
California has a number of construction-related prompt payment laws scattered throughout the state’s Civil Code, Public Contracts Code and Business and Professions Code. Their application depends on the type of construction involved, whether public or private; the type of payment involved, whether a progress payment or retention; and who is paying, whether it’s a private owner, public entity, direct contractor, or subcontractor.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Garret Murai, Wendel Rosen Black & Dean LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@wendel.com
DC District Court Follows Ninth Circuit’s Lead Dismissing NABA’s Border Wall Case
April 10, 2019 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelOn February 14, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the complaint of the National American Butterfly Association (NABA) alleging that the U.S. Government’s border wall preparation and law enforcement activities at NABA’s National Butterfly Center, located in South Texas along the Rio Grande River, violated federal environmental laws (National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA)) as well as NABA’s constitutional rights. The case is National American Butterfly Association v. Nielsen, et al.
On January 25, 2017, the President issued an Executive Order to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (Secretary) to “take all appropriate steps to immediately plan, design, and construct a physical wall along the southern border” with Mexico. A few weeks later, the Secretary issued a memorandum to the U.S. Customs and Border Enforcement to implement the Executive Order. The land occupied by the NABA has been affected by these actions, as well as other actions taken by the Secretary pursuant to her authority under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), located at 8 U.S.C. § 1103.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
A Court-Side Seat: Waters, Walls and Pipelines
August 03, 2020 —
Anthony B. Cavender - Gravel2GavelSeveral interesting decisions have recently been made by federal and state courts.
FEDERAL APPELLATE COURTS
The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals – ARCO Shifts from State to Federal and No Vigor for VIM
On June 18, 2020, the court decided the case of Baker, et al. v. ARCO, holding that the revised federal removal statutes authorize the removal to federal court of a state-filed complaint against several defendants by the former residents of an Indiana housing complex who contended that the defendants were responsible for the industrial pollution attributed to the operations of a now-closed industrial plant. The housing complex was constructed at the site of the former U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery. During the Second World War, the plant produced products for the use of the government war effort, thus triggering the applicability of the federal removal statutes.
On June 25, 2020, the court decided the case of Greene, et al. v. Westfield Insurance Company. As the court notes, this is a matter that “began as a case about environmental pollution and evolved into a joint garnishment action.” An Indiana wood recycling facility, VIM Recycling, was the subject of many complaints by nearby residents that its operations and waste disposal activities exposed then to dust and odors in violation of federal law and triggered state tort law claims. VIM was sued in state court, but neglected to notify its insurer, as required by its insurance policy with Westfield Insurance. One thing led to another, and a default judgment in the amount of $ 50 million was entered against VIM. Since VIM at that point had no assets, the plaintiffs and later VIM sought recovery from Westfield. When this dispute landed in federal court, the court, after reviewing the policy, concluded that there was a provision excluding coverage when the insured knew it had these liabilities when it purchased the insurance. As a result, the lower court dismissed the lawsuit, and this decision has been affirmed by the Seventh Circuit.
Read the court decisionRead the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Anthony B. Cavender, PillsburyMr. Cavender may be contacted at
anthony.cavender@pillsburylaw.com
