Rosemead California Construction Expert Witness Directory

A Permitting Base Checklist for Data Centers and Power Plants

June 02, 2026 — Michael S. McDonough, Stephen J. Humes & Stacey C. Wright - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
There is a lot of talk these days about “license to operate” for data centers, meaning management of the relationships with stakeholders and broader communities concerning both the benefits and adverse consequences of locating a facility in a particular locale. Here, we are speaking of “license to operate” more literally—namely, the legal and regulatory permitting and approval requirements for a privately owned data center whether by itself or colocated with a power generating plant. Our Base Checklist includes generally and potentially applicable permitting requirements for development and operation, using California as an example. (Taking legal authority Frank Sinatra out of context, “If you can make it there, you can make it anywhere.”) The actual requirements for a given facility would depend, in part, on local law, including planning and zoning laws and plans, and the environment of the site. Just as examples, additional permitting and mitigation requirements might apply if sensitive receptors are located nearby (e.g., noise mitigation for residential dwellings), if sensitive and protected biological resources (e.g., jurisdictional waters and/or protected species) would be impacted, or if the present or former land uses require additional measures (e.g., hazardous materials remediation, mitigation for conversion of prime farmland, or protection of cultural resources). The scope of permit requirements would ultimately be determined by the applicable regulatory agencies and by the lead and responsible agencies under the applicable state environmental land use regime—in our reference case here, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Reprinted courtesy of Michael S. McDonough, Pillsbury, Stephen J. Humes, Pillsbury and Stacey C. Wright, Pillsbury Mr. McDonough may be contacted at michael.mcdonough@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Humes may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Wright may be contacted at stephen.humes@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

Reminder: You Can’t Make Others Indemnify You for Your Own Actions

January 13, 2026 — Christopher G. Hill - Construction Law Musings
I have spoken about Virginia Code 11-4.1 and the prohibition on forcing others to indemnify for the actions of the indemnitees on a few occasions here at Construction Law Musings (See Uniwest Posts). The Western District of Virginia gave its take on indemnification clauses and why they need to be carefully drafted in a December 2024 case, Sauer Construction, LLC v. MC3 Solutions, LLC et al. In Sauer, the Court looked at, among other things, an indemnification provision between MC3, a subcontractor to Sauer, and MC3s sub-subcontractor, Bonitz Flooring Group. This was the relatively typical construction dispute where a general contractor sues a subcontractor and then that subcontractor sues its supplier and sub-subcontractors for indemnity pursuant to its contract. When faced with the indemnification claim, Bonitz argued that the indemnification provision violated the Va. Code 11-4.1 because it required Bonitz to indemnify MC3 for MC3’s actions. The provision follows the break. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of The Law Office of Christopher G. Hill
Mr. Hill may be contacted at chrisghill@constructionlawva.com

2026 Construction Law Update

January 26, 2026 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Happy New Year! Hope the holidays were enjoyable for you. During the first session of the California Legislature’s 2025-2026 legislative session, 2,350 bills were introduced, of which 917 bills made it to the Governor’s desk, and of which 794 bills were signed into law. For the design and construction industry the most important bills are a new claims resolution procedure for private works projects, a 5% retention cap on certain private works projects, and a number of changes to home improvement contract requirements. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

The Deadline to File Suit on a Public Works Payment Payment Bond is Triggered by a Claimant’s Work on a Project Not by a Claimant’s Work Under a Contract

June 02, 2026 — Garret D. Murai - California Construction Law Blog
California law requires that prime contractors furnish a payment bond – providing for payment to lower-tiered subcontractors and suppliers – on state and local public works projects with a value in excess of $25,000. There are three conditions that must be satisfied when a claimant makes a claim against a payment bond on a public works project in California:

First, generally, the claimant must have served a preliminary notice, unless the claimant is a first-tier subcontractor or supplier;
The claimant must have “ceased to provide work” on the project; and
The claimant must file suit against the payment bond no later than six (6) months after the period in which a stop payment notice must be given or, in other words, the earlier of 270 days after completion of the public works project or 210 days after a notice of completion or cessation was recorded on a public works project.

In Tarlton & Sons, Inc. v. Great American Insurance Company, 111 Cal.App.5th 376 (2025), the 2nd District Court of Appeal examined whether a subcontractor timely filed a claim against a payment bond when a prime contractor was terminated and replaced by another prime contractor who the subcontractor continued to perform work for. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret D. Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Ownership and Licensing in Design Agreements

April 14, 2026 — Abby Dvorkin - Snell & Wilmer
The ownership and licensing of design documents in professional services agreements play a significant role in protecting the interests of the design professional and the project owner during and after project completion. The ownership or licensing of the drawings provision typically outlines who owns the drawings and specifications, who can use the documents, and how the documents can be used during and after the project. Project owners and developers should understand that payment for design services does not automatically transfer ownership or an exclusive right to use the professional design. Under U.S. copyright law, the default rule is that the design professional retains ownership of the instruments of service absent a contractual provision transferring ownership or a license. See 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. The Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act provides that copyright protection applies to “pictorial, graphic and sculptural works” and includes “architectural works.” 17 U.S.C. § 102. A design professional may only transfer copyright ownership in writing. 17 U.S.C. § 204(a). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Abby Dvorkin, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Dvorkin may be contacted at advorkin@swlaw.com

Scope of Products Requiring Proposition 65 Warnings in California Poised to Grow

February 23, 2026 — Brian M. Ledger & Chassen B. Palmer - Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
The scope of products to be drawn into the warning requirements under California’s Proposition 65 law may soon be growing. California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) requested information from the public on the reproductive toxicity of p,p’-bisphenol chemicals. OEHHA is the lead agency for the implementation of Proposition 65, formerly known as the Safe Drinking Water and Toxicity Enforcement Act of 1986. OEHHA’s request for information is a step toward regulators classifying all p,p’-bisphenol chemicals as reproductive toxicants under Proposition 65. California’s Proposition 65 Under Proposition 65, businesses are required to post clear and reasonable warnings before individuals are exposed to chemicals listed by the state of California as carcinogens or reproductive toxicants. To date, California has listed approximately 900 chemicals that fall under Proposition 65 regulation. Businesses may be held liable for up to $2,500 per violation per day. Proposition 65 can be enforced by public prosecutors (e.g., the California attorney general or district attorneys) or by private enforcers (known as “bounty hunters”). Reprinted courtesy of Brian M. Ledger, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and Chassen B. Palmer, Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Mr. Ledger may be contacted at bledger@grsm.com Mr. Palmer may be contacted at cbpalmer@grsm.com Read the full story...

AI Adoption in Construction: A UK Practitioner’s View

April 20, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
I recently talked with Chris Brady, an AI adoption consultant based in Birmingham, UK, who has spent 18 years working in construction. Two years ago, he began integrating AI into his work with contractors and SMEs, initially as an add-on service, and it has since become his main business. Chris now runs Metrix, an AI consultancy focused on UK construction companies, alongside two other ventures: Trade Upskill, an education platform for construction professionals, and ctrldash.ai, a compliance-automation SaaS for construction SMEs, both of which are soon to launch. What struck me most in our conversation was how grounded his approach is, built on years of direct industry experience rather than arriving from outside with a technology solution looking for a problem. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

Fourth Circuit Extends Coverage to Contractor

May 14, 2026 — Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
The Fourth Circuit in APAC-Atlantic, Inc. v. Owners Insurance Co., No. 24-1969, 2026 WL 458402 (4th Cir. Feb. 18, 2026) recently endorsed broad coverage for additional insureds, interpreting “arising out of” broadly under North Carolina law to extend coverage to a repaving company under its subcontractor’s liability insurance policy. The court held that an additional insured’s liability “arising out of” a named insured’s work in an additional-insured endorsement means liability “relating to” or “causally connected to” the named insured’s operations, rather than liability defined more narrowly as “caused by” or “the fault of” the named insured. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP

ROSEMEAD CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES