Our Practice Areas Tell Us About Your Issue


Case Summaries


[05/18] Gillotti v. Stewart
In a construction defect law suit by a homeowner, the trial court's judgment and post-trial orders denying motions for new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and ordering plaintiff to pay defendant's expert witness fees due to plaintiff not obtaining a judgment more favorable that defendant's settlement offer, Code Civ. Proc. section 998, are affirmed where plaintiff fails to show any basis for reversal.

[04/25] Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
In a construction company's suit against a city for breach of contract, alleging that the city unlawfully assessed liquidated damages against the company for failure to complete a construction project on time, the district court?s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where plaintiff is not excused from the normal requirement of administrative exhaustion under Maryland law.

[04/24] City of L.A. v. AECOM Servs., Inc.
In third-party claims brought by the City of Los Angeles for breach of contract and contribution against contractors that allegedly breached their contractual duty to perform services in compliance with federal disability regulations in the design and construction of a bus facility, the district court's dismissal of the City's claims is reversed where: 1) Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act did not preempt the City's state-law claims because the ADA expressly disavows preemptive federal occupation of the disability-rights field; and 2) conflict preemption also did not preclude the City's claims.

[04/20] Citizens for Beach Rights v. City of San Diego
In a petition for writ of mandate and claim for declaratory relief seeking to halt construction of a new lifeguard station on Mission Beach in San Diego on the grounds that the Site Development Permit (SDP) issued in 2006 had expired, the trial court's judgment issuing a permanent injunction is reversed where: 1) plaintiffs' action was barred by the applicable statutes of limitations; and 2) even if plaintiffs' claims had been timely pursued, the SDP remained valid when construction began.

Read More

Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.