Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

It’s (Not) Discretionary

July 28, 2025 — Daniel Lund III - Lexology
The New Jersey Appellate Division reversed a lower court’s approval of a contractor’s bid for a county project notwithstanding the omission of a critical document, a “Notice of Classification,” which was required by the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). The County of Gloucester issued a call for bids on a project, explicitly requiring bidders to submit a NJDOT “Notice of Classification” with their bid documents. The low bidder failed to include the Notice. Consequently, the County rejected that contractor’s bid, awarding the contract to the second low bidder. The low bidder contested the rejection, asserting that the omission was a waivable defect. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Daniel Lund III, Phelps
Mr. Lund may be contacted at daniel.lund@phelps.com

Court Finds California FAIR Plan Unlawful

September 23, 2025 — Tred R. Eyerly - Insurance Law Hawaii
The Superior Court granted summary judgment to a policy holder who was issued a policy by the California's insurer of last resort, known as the FAIR Plan. Aliff v. California FAIR Plan Association, No. 21STCV200095 (Super. Ct. California June 24, 2025). Plaintiff sued the California Fair Plan Association (CFP) arguing that the property policies it issued unlawfully restricted claims for smoke damage after a fire. The second amended complaint asserted causes of action for declaratory relief and unfair business practices under California statute. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Tred Eyerly, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert
Mr. Eyerly may be contacted at te@hawaiilawyer.com

When “Normal Cracking” Isn’t So Normal: Parra v. Gillaspie Construction and the Two-Year Clock on Construction Defect Claims

November 18, 2025 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
In Michelle and Michael Parra v. Gillaspie Construction, Inc. and Johnson Excavation, Inc. (Colo. App. No. 18CA0800, Mar. 21, 2019), not selected for official publication, the Colorado Court of Appeals reaffirmed an essential principle for builders, homeowners, and insurers alike: under the Colorado Construction Defect Action Reform Act (“CDARA”), the statute of limitations begins to run when a homeowner first observes physical manifestations of a defect, not when the homeowner later learns what caused those problems or concludes they are “excessive.” The case underscores how critical it is to identify, document, and evaluate early signs of construction distress, because waiting for confirmation of a defect can mean the difference between a viable claim and one that is time-barred. Background: Cracks, Gaps, and Growing Concern The Parras hired Gillaspie Construction and Johnson Excavation to build a custom home in Routt County. They moved in January 2010. Within the first year, they noticed cracks in walls, a kitchen backsplash pulling away, and flooring that was “[c]upping and gapping.” By 2013, additional cracking appeared in the office and hallway, gaps opened around the fireplace and hearth, and certain cabinet doors began to misalign. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

Will the YIMBY ‘Holy Grail’ Deliver an LA Building Boom?

December 08, 2025 — Patrick Sisson - Bloomberg
When California Governor Gavin Newsom signed State Bill 79 into law on Oct. 10, supporters of the pro-housing “Yes In My Backyard” movement celebrated a legislative victory that had been called a YIMBY “holy grail.” By legalizing multistory apartments near transit stops in the state’s most urbanized counties — and crucially, in areas formerly zoned for single-family homes — SB 79 was hailed as a huge step toward closing California’s longstanding affordable housing gap. Along with recent reform of the state’s infamous project-delaying environmental review law, CEQA, SB 79 boosters like the advocacy group California YIMBY say that the legislation can unlock the promised goal of “housing abundance” when it comes into effect on July 1, 2026. Now comes the hard part — especially in places like Los Angeles. There, SB 79 faces fierce opposition from community groups who see it as a destroyer of neighborhoods, and from lawmakers like Mayor Karen Bass and a majority of the city council who believe it usurps local control. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Patrick Sisson, Bloomberg

Shiloh and Vallejo: The DOI Tale of Two Properties

October 20, 2025 — Heidi McNeil Staudenmaier & Caitlin Vanderkarr - Snell & Wilmer
California courts have certainly been busy as of late. In particular, challenges abound as to the Department of the Interior (the DOI) and its decisions to take certain parcels of land into trust for the purpose of rendering such parcels eligible for gaming activities by certain California tribes. The DOI Shiloh Parcel Dispute The Shiloh parcel, a tract of land the DOI previously approved as land taken into trust for gaming purposes under the restored lands exception of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) on behalf of the Koi Nation of Northern California (The Koi), has been the subject of considerable controversy. Reprinted courtesy of Heidi McNeil Staudenmaier, Snell & Wilmer and Caitlin Vanderkarr, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Staudenmaier may be contacted at hstaudenmaier@swlaw.com Ms. Vanderkarr may be contacted at cvanderkarr@swlaw.com Read the full story...

Making the Case for Standing Construction Mediators on Every Complex Construction Project

October 06, 2025 — Joel Bertet - The Dispute Resolver
Construction abandonments of private projects have hit an all-time high. Private developers scrapped more projects in May 2025 than in any other month on record, according to the latest data from Cincinnati based ConstructConnect. The Project Stress Index is a measure of construction projects that have been paused, abandoned, or have a delayed bid date. “Abandonment activity has continued to rise, reaching its highest reading in over a year,” said Devlin Bell, associate economist at ConstructConnect. For the month of May 2025, private abandonments increased 62.6% over the month and are now up 92.2% year over year. That surge has led to the highest level of abandonments since ConstructConnect began tracking data in mid-2019. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Joel Bertet, ResolveBertet
Mr. Bertet may be contacted at joel@resolvebertet.com

Armor Up: Fortifying Your Business Against California Litigation

July 22, 2025 — Kathryne E. Baldwin - Wilke Fleury
California is a litigious landscape; it is one of the most heavily regulated and litigious states in the country. Businesses both small and large face a complex web of employment laws, consumer protection statutes, environmental regulations, and contractual obligations -- most of which come with heavy-handed penalties for non-compliance. In this environment, the best defense is a robust offense. Businesses that invest internally in thoughtful structuring, clear internal protocols, and regular legal check-ins position themselves well to avoid litigation altogether or, at the very least, to withstand it. Facing litigation can be a reality in today’s world of catchy headlines of big-time judgments, so it is important to follow some time-tested rules to best arm your business if the day comes where it needs to defend itself. First Rule of Litigation: Documentation -- It will not be surprising to learn the best way to protect your business against what feels like inevitable litigation, is documentation. Whether it is your time clock entries, communications with vendors or clients, clear, written documentation that complies with California law creates a record that can make or break a defense. If you do have something like an employment handbook, do not rest on the laurels of that accomplishment. Have it reviewed regularly to be sure it reflects compliance with current legal standards. Doing so means you close common loopholes that billboard and bus stop plaintiff attorneys are familiar with exploiting. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Kathryne E. Baldwin, Wilke Fleury
Ms. Baldwin may be contacted at kbaldwin@wilkefleury.com

No Cross-Complaint Needed: Contractor Can Fight Co-Defendant’s Summary Judgment

October 21, 2025 — Keith E. Smith - Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP
In a decision of first impression, the California Court of Appeal in RND Contractors, Inc. v. WRSE (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 697, clarified whether a co-defendant may oppose another defendant's motion for summary judgment without having first filed a cross-complaint. The case arose from the collapse of a high school gymnasium during construction, leading to negligence, wrongful death, and premises liability claims against the project participants. The court held that "any adverse party" may oppose another party's motion for summary judgment, even if the Plaintiff does not oppose the motion and there is no cross-complaint filed by the co-defendant opposing summary judgment. This ruling resolves a novel procedural question which had not been addressed by any Court of Appeal in California to date. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Keith E. Smith, Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP
Mr. Smith may be contacted at kesmith@wshblaw.com

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES