SIGN UP TO RECEIVE OUR EMAIL NEWSLETER
Firearms Law Alert (March 2016)
The California legislature continues to introduce more and more increasingly restrictive gun laws in the form of Assembly Bills (ABs) or Senate Bills (SBs). Recently, three ABs have been introduced, that if passed, will drastically change gun ownership in California.
Firearms Law Alert (January 2016)
The Wall Street Journal (Dec. 12, 2015) reports that authorities “across the country are getting a flood of applications to carry concealed weapons in the wake of the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, especially in locations near sites of recent mass shootings.”
Construction Law E-Alert (August 2015)
The Fifth Appellate District ruled SB800 (California's "Right to Repair Act" [the "Act"]) provides the sole remedy for homeowners in construction defect actions. The court found "no other cause of action is allowed to recover for repair of the defect itself or for repair of any damage caused by the defect."
Firearms Law Alert (February 2015)
As many in the firearms industry are aware, especially those that do business in the state of California, recent legislation was enacted, effective January 1, 2015, to further restrict the sales of semiautomatic handguns through the “single shot exemption.” For those who are unaware, until the beginning of the year, California law had allowed the sale of certain handguns without requiring that they be added to the California Roster of Certified Handguns. The law included an exemption for single-shot handguns that met certain length and other requirements.
Aviation Alert (January 2015)
On December 18, 2014, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) released revised draft guidance for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change impacts under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Aviation Alert (August 2014)
On June 30, 2014, in a partially published decision, the Fifth District Court of Appeal issued its decision in Citizens Opposing a Dangerous Environment v. County of Kern (2014) __ Cal.App.4th __, 174 Cal.Rptr.3d 683, 2014 WL 3696543. At issue was whether the County of Kern violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by adopting a mitigation measure requiring project applicants to obtain a “no hazard” determination from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for a proposed wind farm near a private airport in Kern County.
Aviation Alert (July 2014)
On June 6, 2014, California’s Sixth Appellate District issued its decision in Citizens Against Airport Pollution v. City of San Jose (H038781; 2014 WL2987959). At issue in the case was whether the City of San Jose violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by approving an addendum to the certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Jose International Airport Master Plan.
Construction Law E-Alert (July 2014)
On July 3, 2014, the California Supreme Court, in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (Jul. 3, 2014, S208173) __Cal.4th__ [2014 WL 2988058], held that architects owe a duty of care to future homeowners of residential buildings, particularly if they act as principal architects on a project, and are not subordinate to any other design professional. Until now, design professionals were rarely held liable, if at all, for third-party claims for design deficiencies.
Construction Law E-Alert (March 2014)
The applicability of pre-litigation procedures has come under scrutiny lately, as witnessed in the recent Second Appellate District opinions of Burch v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Premier Homes LLC) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1411 and KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc. v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County (Allstate Insurance Co.) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 1471.
Construction Law E-Alert (February 2014)
The California Court of Appeal, Second District has issued two opinions with ramifications to California's "Right to Repair Act" (Civil Code § 8965, et seq.).
Construction Law E-Alert (August 2013)
The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three, recently determined that a homeowner, or its subrogee, need not comply with the "Right to Repair Act" (also, "the Act") [Civ. Code, §§ 895 to 945.5]) where actual property damage has occurred.
Aviation Alert (March 2013)
On March 19, 2013, Assembly Bill (AB) 756 – which previously served as a “spot bill” during this legislative session – was substantively amended to propose CEQA reform for “public works projects.”
Aviation Alert (February 2013)
On Friday, February 22, 2013, Senate Pro Tem Daryl Steinberg introduced SB 731. While not earth shattering in its present form, some concepts identified in the bill may prove to be beneficial to California’s airports if the concepts are favorably fleshed out and enacted.
Construction Law E-Alert (February 2013)
In December 2012, the Court of Appeal reversed more than 50 years of existing law in Beacon Residential Community Association v. Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP, et al. (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1301; and, in November 2012, the California Court of Appeal, in Darling v. Superior Court (Western Pacific Housing, Inc.) (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 69, resolved the interplay between two sections of SB 800.
previous / next
Construction Law E-Alert (August 2012)
The California Supreme Court ruled in Pinnacle Museum Tower Assn. v. Pinnacle Market Development (2012) 55 Cal.4th 223, that arbitration provisions within the covenants, conditions, and restrictions ("CC&Rs") for condominium projects are enforceable against their homeowner associations. The ruling – two years in the making – was based on legislative history of laws governing common interest developments, and decades of decisional authority involving contracts and arbitration provisions.
Construction Law E-Alert (June 2012)
The Court of Appeal, Second District, Division Three, ruled in Oak Springs Villas Homeowners Association v. Advanced Truss Systems, Inc., et al. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 1304, that a non-settling defendant cannot appeal a trial court's good faith settlement determination.
Construction Law E-Alert (April 2012)
On April 11, 2012, in Axis Surplus Insurance Company v. Glencoe Insurance LTD. (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1214, the Court of Appeal examined whether an insurance carrier, with full notice of a claim and admitted coverage, can disclaim coverage because a self-insured retention ("SIR") was not satisfied until the very end of a case. The Court declined to allow such "gamesmanship," and required a non-participating carrier to participate regardless of when the SIR was satisfied.