News

Real Estate

[11/21]
[11/20]
[11/20]
[11/20]
[11/20]
[11/20]
[11/20]
[11/20]
[11/20]
[11/19]
[11/19]
[11/19]
[11/19]

More...

Construction

[11/20]
[11/20]
[11/20]
[11/20]
[11/20]
[11/20]
[11/20]
[11/20]
[11/19]
[11/19]
[11/19]
[11/19]
[11/19]

More...

Case Summaries

Property Law & Real Estate

[11/21] US v. Goss
Sentence for mortgage-lending fraud is vacated and remanded where, when computing the sentencing guidelines range, the fair market value of the collateral for each of the home-mortgage loans involved in the scheme should have been credited against loss to the victim.

[11/19] McDonald v. Sun Oil Co.
In a suit arising out of the sale of a property containing a disused mercury mine, alleging negligence, contribution, breach of contract and fraud as a result of an alleged oral warranty that certain rock at the mine was free of mercury, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the state statute of repose did not render the negligence claim time-barred, because provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act amending state statute of limitations rules also applied to statutes of repose; 2) the contribution claim could not be brought without remedial action having been initiated by a state environmental agency; 3) the parol evidence rule was properly applied to find that the parties had reduced their entire agreement to writing and that no binding oral warranty existed; and 4) plaintiffs did not produce evidence of the alleged falsity of statements made by defendant.

[11/19] Vineberg v. Bissonnette
In a property matter concerning the viability of a laches defense asserted by the current possessor of a work of art in effort to fend of an action for replevin, summary judgment in favor of original owner's successors in interest is affirmed where: 1) the district court acted well within the realm of its discretion in refusing the defendant's tardy request to reopen discovery; and 2) the court had an appropriate rationale for granting the plaintiffs' motion for brevis disposition.

More...

Construction

[11/03] Heritage Constructors, Inc. v. City of Greenwood
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a city for retaliation under the First and Fourteenth Amendments arising from the city's allegedly denying plaintiff a contract in retaliation for an earlier arbitration, summary judgment for the city is affirmed where: 1) a public contractor's right-to-petition claim must involve a matter of public concern, just as a freedom-of-speech claim must; and 2) plaintiff did not allege that its earlier arbitration was a matter of public concern.

[10/30] Save Tara v. City of W. Hollywood
Under some circumstances an agency's agreement allowing private development, conditioned on future compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), constitutes approval of the project that must be preceded by preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR) under Pub. Resources Code sections 21100 and 21151. In this case, the City of West Hollywood's conditional agreement to sell land for private development, coupled with financial support, public statements, and other actions by its officials committing the city to the development was, for CEQA purposes, an approval of the project that was statutorily required to have been preceded by preparation of an EIR.

[10/30] Consulting Eng'rs and Land Surveyors of California v. California Dept. of Transp.
In an action filed by plaintiffs seeking a judicial determination that the civil service provisions of Senate Bill 1026 -- requiring that certain work is affirmed where on the project must be performed by employees of defendant-Caltrans -- violated Article XXII and an order permanently enjoining defendant from implementing those statutory provisions, judgment in favor of plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) the trial court correctly held that the portions of certain statutes requiring that certain architectural and engineering work must be performed by architects and engineers employed by defendant-Caltrans were unconstitutional; and 2) defendant-Caltrans may choose to have this work performed by its employees, but the Legislature could not mandate that Caltrans do so.

More...

Contracts

[11/19] McDonald v. Sun Oil Co.
In a suit arising out of the sale of a property containing a disused mercury mine, alleging negligence, contribution, breach of contract and fraud as a result of an alleged oral warranty that certain rock at the mine was free of mercury, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed in part and reversed in part where: 1) the state statute of repose did not render the negligence claim time-barred, because provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act amending state statute of limitations rules also applied to statutes of repose; 2) the contribution claim could not be brought without remedial action having been initiated by a state environmental agency; 3) the parol evidence rule was properly applied to find that the parties had reduced their entire agreement to writing and that no binding oral warranty existed; and 4) plaintiffs did not produce evidence of the alleged falsity of statements made by defendant.

[11/18] Dealer Computer Svcs., Inc. v. Dub Herring Ford
Following an arbitration decision granting award to defendant-dealerships and finding arbitration provisions found in various contracts between defendant-dealerships and plaintiff-computer software and hardware vendor did not preclude class arbitration, district court judgment in favor of defendant-dealerships is vacated and remanded with instructions to dismiss where the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider plaintiff's motion to vacate the arbitration award because the matter was not ripe for judicial review.

[11/17] Native Am. Distrib. v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co.
In an breach of contract action between a distributor and an enterprise of a tribe, dismissal of plaintiffs' claims is affirmed where: 1) the tribal enterprise has not waived its immunity; 2) the enterprise was not equitably estopped from asserting its immunity due to the misrepresentations of its managers; 3) the district court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction; and 4) the plaintiffs failed to allege a viable civil conspiracy claim against the individual defendants in their individual capacities.

More...