Articles Posted in Construction Generally

Posted
by

On September 30, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected a challenge to the decision of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to withdraw a proposed listing of the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard, a species found in many oil and gas producing areas, as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. The case is Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Jewell. The District Court held that the decision of the FWS was lawful, and comported with the requirements of the ESA and the FWS’ and National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) 2003 Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) for the Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions. Of particular importance were three conservation mechanisms–the BLM’s Resource Management Plan Amendment, the “New Mexico Agreement”, and the “Texas Plan”. The New Mexico and Texas plans are Candidate Conservation Agreements that the Service approved.

The Texas Comptroller and several oil and gas associations intervened as defendants to support the Service and their own conservation plans. This decision is likely to be appealed, but it certainly seems to strengthen the case for the measures that are being proposed (and challenged) to protect the Lesser Prairie Chicken, a species that was listed as threatened earlier this year.

Posted
by

On September 26, 2014, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, holding that Columbia Gas Transmission Company, an interstate natural gas company regulated by FERC, has the right of eminent domain granted by 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h) to obtain easements over the land of objecting landowners, even when such new easements would be located outside of the existing right of way, in order to replace a deteriorating pipeline that is now located in a heavily populated area of Pennsylvania. The case is Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 1.01 Acres, More or Less in Penn Township, York County, Pennsylvania, Located on Tax ID# 440002800150000000 Owned by Dwayne P. Brown and Ann M. Brown, et al.

To obtain these easements, Columbia filed Complaints of Condemnation in federal court against four landowners. The District Court denied Columbia’s request, holding that the implementing FERC regulation was ambiguous, and the court therefore “looked outside the regulations” and determined that the agency’s interpretation was not entitled to deference. Columbia had received a “blanket” certificate of convenience and necessity from FERC, which the majority of the Court of Appeals held provided the holder of the certificate with the authority to conduct a routine activity of replacement without further authorization by FERC. According to the Court of Appeals , the applicable FERC rule was not ambiguous, and must be enforced, although the Court of Appeals also noted that this right was subject to certain limitations including environmental compliance. Referring to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. E.P.A., 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2442 (2014), the court held that the statute as a whole must be reviewed before its parts could be considered to be ambiguous. Finally, the Court of Appeals granted Columbia’s request for preliminary injunctions, allowing it to take immediate possession of these easements.

The dissenting opinion concluded with this observation: “It is disturbing and encouraging that, by today’s ruling, the Majority endorses a view of delegated sovereign power so broad that a private gas company, with no agency oversight or other significant procedural restraint, can take the property of other citizens far removed from that company’s original right of way”.

Posted
by

UPDATE: Applications for the Position of the Registrar of Contractors must be received by 5:00 p.m. PST on November 17, 2014 and must include all required information.

The California Contractors State License Board invites applications for the position of Registrar of Contractors. The Registrar of Contractors is responsible for, among other things, carrying out the policies of the CSLB and for planning, organizing, and directing CSLB activities in the areas of administration, enforcement, information technology, and licensure. The position is located in Sacramento, California. All submissions must be received by 5:00p.m. on October 15, 2014, and must include both email and telephone contact information. For additional information review the invitation or contact Eileen Fuller at (916) 574-8385.

The current Registrar of Contractors, Steve Sands, announced on April 24, at the CSLB’s quarterly board meeting, that he planned to retire at the end of the year, after being “at the helm” of the CSLB since January 1, 2001.

Additional Resources: California CSLB Registrar of Contractors Announces Departure

Posted
by and

United States Supreme Court decisions provide guideposts for the exercise of environmental permitting and enforcement power by state and federal authorities. Whether a particular facility can be permitted often determines whether it can be built or modified after it has been constructed. In addition, a decision such as the Court’s ruling in the case of Marvin Brandt Revocable Trust v. US has a bearing on land use considerations. Even a decision by the Court not to take up a case will have these same consequences. For instance, the Court’s refusal to review the Mingo Logan Coal Company v. EPA leaves undisturbed the EPA’s asserted power to overturn a Corps of Engineers’ permitting decision, which may create disincentives to begin a project in the first place if it looks controversial.

Recently, we published our advisory Supreme Court Roundup: Recent Environmental Law Rulings and Pending Cases. Our Advisory discusses the United States Supreme Court’s rulings affecting environmental law during the October 2013 Term. With significant pronouncements regarding EPA’s Clean Air Act regulatory authority among them, however, the October 2013 Term was far from uneventful. Several more cases slated for the October 2014 Term presage rulings across a broad spectrum of environmental and administrative law issues.

Posted
by

A new California law effective July 1, 2015 requires employers to provide at least 3 paid sick days per year. Workers covered by valid collective bargaining agreements meeting certain requirements are exempt, but contractors should review their sick leave policies for all employees to ensure they are in compliance. Please click here for a helpful guide to the new law prepared by Pillsbury’s employment law group.

Posted
by

On September 4, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision rejecting the argument that a Clean Water Act (CWA) “permit shield” required the dismissal of a CWA citizen suit. The case is Alaska Community Action on Toxics, et al. v. Aurora Energy Services, LLC; Alaska Railroad Corporation, which had been argued less than a month before the ruling was made. The defendants own and operate a coal loading facility located on the northwest shore of Resurrection Bay in Seward, Alaska. Since 2001, the facility has been covered by an EPA “multi-sector” General Permit for Stormwater Discharges, and the defendants argued that any spills of coal from the facility into Resurrection Bat was covered by this permit and the “permit shield” provisions of Subdivision (k) of Section 1342 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. § 1342(k)). The lower court agreed with the defendants and granted summary judgment.

However, according to the Court of Appeals, a careful review of the provisions of the permit disclosed that these particular “non-stormwater” discharges were not, in fact, covered by the permit, and the decision of the lower court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

This is the second “permit shield” case to be decided by the Court of Appeals in the past few months. In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit also rejected the use of the permit shield defense in the case of Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards, et al., v. A & G Coal Corporation, 2014 WL 3377687 (4th Cir. July 14, 2014), which involved the interpretation of an individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the disclosures the applicant made to the permitting authority. It is evident that the courts are subjecting this defense to an exacting review.

Additional Source: Aurora Energy Decision Deems Discharges Prohibited, Leaves Open Question of Permit Shield Applicability; “Permit Shield” Defense Unavailable When Presence of Pollutant Was Not Disclosed In Permit Application Process

Posted
by

Rule of Thumb: If the business entity’s name change results in the California Secretary of State issuing a new registration number, a new California contractor’s license will be required ~ a contractor’s license is not transferrable. If a new license is required, you must file an application for original contractor’s license and fulfill any other requirements, including bonding and insurance requirements. The license application approval process can take time, plan ahead and, if prudent, request that the license application approval process be expedited. (It is a misdemeanor for a person to engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor in California without having the requisite contractor’s license.)

Any change to the licensee’s name or address must be reported to the CSLB within 90 days of the change by submitting an Application to Change Business Name or Address signed by an owner, partner, or officer of the corporation. Also keep in mind that any new business name cannot indicate (1) a change in the type of entity, e.g., LLC, LLP, Inc., etc., (2) that the company qualifies for a classification other than the one for which it is currently licensed, or (3) a personnel change. In addition, any corporate name change must first be registered with the Secretary of State’s Office; adding a “DBA” to the existing corporate name does not require any changes with the Secretary of State’s Office, except that the DBA cannot indicate a second corporation.

Additional Source: CSLB, Change Your Business Name or Address; CSLB Forms and Applications

Posted
by

On September 4, 2014, U.S. District Court Judge Carl Barbier issued a ruling holding that BP Exploration & Production Inc. is subject to enhanced civil penalties under the Clean Water Act (CWA) because the deadly April 20, 2010 blowout, explosion, fire and massive oil spill at the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico was due to BP’s gross negligence and willful misconduct. Thousands of cases involving over a hundred thousand claimants have been filed in federal and state courts. The case is

Posted
by

Yesterday, Pillsbury attorney Ray Sweigart published his client advisory English Contract Law: Choice of Law and Forum Trumped? Beware (or at least be aware) of the Commercial Agents Regulations. The Advisory discusses the English High Court’s analysis, in Fern Computer Consultancy Ltd v Intergraph Cadworx & Analysis Solutions Inc [2014] EWHC 2908 (Ch) (29 August 2014), of the arguments for and against non-English forum selection and choice of law terms in commercial contracts involving English parties or performance in England, as well as permissive service of English court proceedings out of the jurisdiction. While the outcome was not final, it certainly sends a note of caution and a reminder to consult English qualified counsel before assuming that application of English law and English court proceedings can be avoided by contract.

If you have any questions about the content of this blog, please contact the Pillsbury attorney with whom you regularly work or Ray Sweigart, the author of this blog.

Posted
by

New Jersey’s Appellate Division recently reversed a trial court’s dismissal of a general contractor’s claim against a performance bond, holding that the bond must cover the general contractor as the intended obligee, even though the general contractor was not expressly named in the bond.

In Allied Building Products Corp. v. J. Strober & Sons, LLC, et al., A-1113-12T4 (NJ App. Div., September 5, 2014), Dobco, Inc. (“Dobco”) was the general contractor for a science hall renovation project at William Paterson University. J. Strober & Sons, LLC (“Strober”) bid for and was awarded a roofing subcontract on the project. The subcontract between Dobco and Strober required Strober to obtain payment and performance bonds, in the form annexed to the Dobco-Strober subcontract (which required that Strober be named obligee on the bonds).

Strober was awarded the subcontract with Dobco, but in accordance with the company’s procedure, Colonial did not review the actual subcontract. Nevertheless, an underwriter approved issuance of the performance bond, and Strober paid for the bond.

However, when the performance bond was issued, it named William Paterson University as the obligee, rather than Dobco. Dobco advised Strober that it rejected the bond, because it was required to name Dobco as obligee. As a result, Strober issued payment and performance bonds naming Dobco as obligee, using a power of attorney and Colonial’s seal. Colonial asserted that the bonds were a nullity, because Strober was only authorized to issue bid bonds using Colonial’s seal and power of attorney, in accordance with its “partnership account.” Nevertheless, Dobco rejected these bonds as well, and demanded that Colonial issue the bonds with various documents that ordinarily accompany payment and performance bonds. Strobco did not procure the bonds, but nevertheless began its work on the project.

During the project, Dobco became concerned with Strober’s performance, and requested the bonds that had not been delivered. Strober repeatedly contacted Colonial, but was advised several times that the bonds were “still in underwriting,” even though Colonial had already accepted the premium. Eventually, Dobco terminated Strober, and Strober filed for bankruptcy protection. Dobco filed a claim against the bond, but it was denied because Dobco had rejected both sets of bonds, and Colonial maintained, therefore, that they were not in effect.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court dismissed Dobco’s claim against the bond, citing established New Jersey law that a surety is “chargeable only according to the strict terms of its undertaking and its obligation cannot and should not be extended either by implication or by construction beyond the confines of its contract.” Since Dobco rejected both bonds, the trial court found that there was no valid contract between Colonial and Dobco.

The Appellate Division reversed, noting that, when a bond incorporates a contract by reference, the bond and the contract must be considered as one integrated document in ascertaining the meaning of the bond’s provisions. The Appellate Division held that “strict construction” should have only applied after the extent of the surety’s undertaking was determined; it should not have been used to interpret the language creating the surety’s obligations under the bond. Thus, the Court held that the bond was intended to secure Strober’s contractual obligation to Dobco, which required Strober to obtain a performance bond, naming Dobco as obligee. In so holding, the Court stated, “[W]hen Colonial agreed to bond [Strober’s] performance, it undertook the obligation to do so in the form required by the contract. That Colonial chose not to review the contract it bonded cannot relieve it of obligations voluntarily undertaken.” The Court was unmoved by Colonial’s argument that Dobco rejected both bonds, and ordered the bond reformed, consistent with the Dobco-Strober subcontract.