On April 30, 2021, in Hampton v. ADT, LLC, et al., the New Jersey Appellate Division vacated a September 2020 trial court order dismissing a former employee’s lawsuit and compelling him.
PublicCEO
A large attorneys’ fees award under the private attorney general statute was recently affirmed by a California Appellate Court. The case,
Beach, is notable not just for the large amount of the award, but that the award was issued jointly and severally against the City of Redondo Beach and the private developers, who were real parties in interest.
Although the Second District Court of Appeal’s decision on this matter, issued in February, is not published, the opinion serves as a good reminder for local jurisdictions to think about potential attorneys’ fees awards when considering development projects. Most jurisdictions do impose indemnification conditions as part of their approvals, but this case shows the importance of ensuring fees are tracked and paid on a concurrent basis throughout the transactional and litigation processes, as well as potentially thinking about options for how to ensure jurisdictions can collect on the indemnification provisions if a lar
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On March 26, 2021, the Illinois Appellate Court issued an opinion affirming dismissal, with prejudice, of a contractor’s mechanics lien enforcement action. The decision highlights the importance of strict adherence to the statutory framework governing mechanics lien enforcement, and in particular, the requirement to name all known holders of interests affected by the lien as early as possible.
Case Background and Trial Court Decision
The factual background of
CB Construction & Design, LLC v. Atlas Brookview, LLC, 2021 IL App (1st) 200924 (1st Dist. 2021) is not uncommon in the world of construction disputes: upon the completion of a nearly $10M renovation project, the owner (Atlas) refused to pay the contractor (CB) approximately $1.4M remaining under the parties’ contract, which prompted CB to file a mechanics lien against the subject property. Atlas then served CB with a demand under Section 34 of the Mechanics L
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
Seyfarth Synopsis: In Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, a class action seeking meal period premium pay, the California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and held that employers cannot engage in the practice of rounding time punches in the meal period context, and that time records showing noncompliant meal periods raise a rebuttable presumption of meal period violations.
The Facts
Kennedy Donohue was a nurse recruiter for AMN Services in its San Diego office from September 2012 to February 2014. AMN used a timekeeping system called Team Time, which rounded punch-in and punch-out times to the nearest 10-minute increment. Punch times between 7:55 a.m. and 8:04 a.m. would thus be recorded as 8:00 a.m. Donohue alleged she was discouraged from taking meal and rest breaks, and often had to take short breaks.
On Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada released its long-awaited
decision in
C.M. Callow Inc. v.
Zollinger.
1 The decision provides a
significant elaboration of the scope and implications of the
doctrine of good faith in Canadian contract law from the
Court s landmark 2014 decision in
Bhasin v.
Hyrnew.
In 2014, the Supreme Court of Canada in
Bhasin v,
Hrynew recognized a general organizing principle
of good faith to address the types of situations and relationships
where the law requires honest, candid, forthright or reasonable
contractual performance.
3 The Court s decision,
however, left important questions about the scope of this
organizing principle and the particular duty of honest contractual