Skip to Content

Yearly Archives: 2011

  • Make Time for Change: Now is the Time to Understand the Upcoming Overhaul of California’s Statutory Remedy Laws Affecting Public Entities, Private Owners, Contractors, Design Professionals, Engineers, Material Suppliers and Others. To comply with the new statutory requirements, which will go into effect on July 1, 2012, it is essential that contractors, suppliers and other claimants on private and public works of improvements understand the new mechanic’s lien law.  Any claimant that fails to either comply with the new notice requirements or update their notice forms (including the preliminary notice, mechanic’s lien and stop payment notice forms) risks waiving their statutory rights.  […]

  • H.R. 674 was signed by President Obama and became Public Law No: 112-56 on November 21, 2011. This new law amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the imposition of a 3% withholding on certain payments made to vendors (contractors) by government entities.  Additional Resource Information:  Link here to the Library of Congress for additional information about this legislation. You can also register to attend our Annual Review Preview Construction Law Seminar on January 26, 2012 to learn about other recent changes in California construction laws and how they will affect your business.  The content contained herein is published online by Gibbs […]

  • The Carrot Recently the IRS rolled out a new, voluntary worker classification settlement program. Employers will have an opportunity to reclassify their independent contractors as employees and escape a good share of tax liability and penalties that would otherwise attach to such a reclassification. To be eligible: an applicant must have consistently treated the workers in the past as nonemployees; must have filed all required Forms 1099 for the workers for the previous three years; must not currently be under audit by the IRS; and must not currently be under audit by the Department of Labor or a state agency […]

  • ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS AND THEIR IMPACT ON COMMON INTEREST The California legislature recently enacted Senate Bill No. 209 (codified as Civil Code Section 1353.9) which expressly mandates that those provisions of governing documents that prohibit or unreasonably restrict the installation or use of an electric vehicle charging station (“EVCS”) is void and unenforceable. CHARGING AHEAD…… If an owner intends to place a charging station within the common area or an exclusive use common area, he or she must first obtain Association approval prior to such installation. An Association must, however, approve such application if the owner agrees, in writing, […]

  • 2011 Nevada Legislative Changes to Commercial Tenancies (AB 398 will take effect on October 1, 2011) Prior to the enactment of AB 398 on June 4, 2011, there were no Nevada laws that dealt specifically with commercial landlord-tenant issues. Instead, the only governing law for landlord-tenant issues was NRS Chapter 40, which primarily deals with residential properties. AB 398 now creates a new chapter in Title 10 of the NRS relating solely to commercial tenancies. Section 15.5: Jurisdiction AB 398 provides that justice court has jurisdiction over any civil action concerning the removal of a tenant from commercial premises in […]

  • LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, September 19, 2011 – Fyfe Group, LLC was acquired by Insituform Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq Global Select Market: INSU). The total purchase price was approximately $115 million. William Locher, Seth Eaton, and Jonathan Wolf of Gibbs, Giden, Locher, Turner & Senet LLP represented the seller, Fyfe Group, LLC, and provided legal services related to due diligence, negotiation of the purchase agreement, and documentation of all related aspects of the transaction. The transaction closed on August 31, 2011. Fyfe Group, based in San Diego, California, is a pioneer and industry leader in the development, manufacture and installation of fiber […]

  • In Salas v. Sierra Chemical Co, _____Cal.App.4th ___ (3d Appellate District, 2010) an employee sued a former employer for disability discrimination under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and wrongful failure to hire in violation of public policy. This case arises from a seasonal employee’s failure to be rehired after suffering a workplace injury during prior term of employment.  On a motion for summary judgment, the employer presented undisputed evidence that the Social Security number used by the employee belonged to another person living in North Carolina.  The trial court granted summary judgment to the employer on the basis of the after Acquired Evidence doctrine […]

  • In Hensel Phelps Construction Company v. San Diego Unified Port District (2011) ___ Cal.App.4th __, 2011 WL 3058889, the California Court of Appeal reached an important decision regarding application of California’s Prevailing Wage Law (“PWL”) to a privately developed hotel project constructed on land leased from a public entity where the lease provided a rent credit of up to $45.6 million during the first eleven years of the lease. The Court of Appeal held that the project was a public work requiring the payment of prevailing wages because (1) it constitutes construction done under contract for the purposes of the PWL and […]

  • California Governor Brown recently signed Senate Bill 190 effecting additional changes to the California mechanic’s lien law. This law will be operative on July 1, 2012. PRINT SB 190 Attend our Annual Review Preview Construction Law Seminar in January 2012 to learn about changes in the California construction laws (including the mechanic’s lien law) and how they will affect your business.  The content contained herein is published online by Gibbs Giden Locher Turner Senet & Wittbrodt LLP (“Gibbs Giden”) for informational purposes only, may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements, and does not constitute legal advice. Do not […]

  • Case Summary: In Sullivan v. Oracle Corporation, a class of former Oracle employees, residents of Colorado and Arizona, worked as instructors for that company, specifically, instructing Oracle clients at their places of business in the use of Oracle products.  In the course of such work these employees sometimes travelled to and worked in other states, including California.  These employees sued Oracle in a class action in the United States District Court, Central District of California, alleging that they were covered by California’s more generous overtime laws for the time they worked in California.  The District Court granted a motion for summary judgment in Oracle’s favor, […]