(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a man who was shot in the parking lot after a professional football game could not proceed with his personal injury claims. His lawsuit against the football team was barred by the statute of limitations. Affirmed a dismissal.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal from a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals finding that the government did not breach the terms of a supply contract with plaintiff, the Board's decision is: 1) affirmed in part where the government did not breach the express terms of the contract or a later agreement to consider exceptions; but 2) vacated in part where the Board erred when it concluded that it 'need not decide' plaintiff's implied duty and constructive change claims.

(United States Third Circuit) - In a case arising from a bitter bidding dispute for a contract to strip and repaint the Commodore Barry Bridge, in which the contracting agency rejected the lowest bidder-plaintiff because it determined that plaintiff was not a 'responsible' contractor, the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiff is: 1) affirmed in part where the district court did not err in ruling that defendant acted arbitrarily and capriciously; but 2) vacated in part where the district court abused its discretion in directing defendant to award the contract to plaintiff.

(United States Supreme Court) - In an insurance class action arising in the context of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (FEHBA) authorization of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to contract with private carriers for federal employees' health insurance, 5 U.S.C. section 8902(a) and (d), the Missouri Supreme Court's decision, preventing federal employee insurance carries from seeking subrogation and reimbursement if there is a conflicting state law, is reversed where, because contractual subrogation and reimbursement prescriptions plainly 'relate to . . . payments with respect to benefits,' section 8902(m)(1), they override state laws barring subrogation and reimbursement.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In third-party claims brought by the City of Los Angeles for breach of contract and contribution against contractors that allegedly breached their contractual duty to perform services in compliance with federal disability regulations in the design and construction of a bus facility, the district court's dismissal of the City's claims is reversed where: 1) Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act did not preempt the City's state-law claims because the ADA expressly disavows preemptive federal occupation of the disability-rights field; and 2) conflict preemption also did not preclude the City's claims.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a construction company's suit against a city for breach of contract, alleging that the city unlawfully assessed liquidated damages against the company for failure to complete a construction project on time, the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where plaintiff is not excused from the normal requirement of administrative exhaustion under Maryland law.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In a False Claims Act suit brought the U.S. Government against Sprint Communications, the district court's order denying appellant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) motion to intervene as of right is affirmed where: 1) although his appeal is not moot, he did not have a significantly protectable interest in the government's False Claims Act suit; and 2) his prior filing of a related, but jurisdictionally barred, qui tam action did not entitle him to any award under the False Claims Act.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In the Government's appeal of attorney's fees awarded to plaintiff by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), 28 U.S.C. sections 2412(a) and (d)(1)(A) (2012), the Claims Court's conclusion that comments made by the Court during a hearing and prior to the Government taking corrective action materially altered the relationship between the parties such that plaintiff qualified as a 'prevailing party' under the EAJA, the award is reversed where a strong comment by a trial court is not tantamount to a ruling on the merits or a court order.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal of a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals denying plaintiff's damages claim arising out of its contract with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build housing units on Malmstrom Air Force Base, the Board's decision is affirmed where there was no change to the base access policy that forced additional costs.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a reverse validation action under Code Civ. Proc. section 863 challenging the propriety of school districts' use of lease-leaseback agreements in contracting for construction or improvement of school facilities, the trial court's judgment sustaining defendants' demurrer is: 1) reversed in part as to the conflict of interest claim where plaintiff has stated a claim of conflict of interest against the construction company-defendant sufficient to withstand a demurrer; but 2) otherwise affirmed.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Denying the petition for review of the award of disability benefits under the Defense Base Act and the application of a judicially-created 'zone of special danger' doctrine to a local national injured while employed by a government contractor overseas.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - Affirming the remand of a case involving a dispute between a government contractor and its subcontractor because the party seeking to remove to federal court filed an untimely notice to remove and had waived its right to remove by engaging in substantive defensive action in state court prior to filing a notice of removal by filing counterclaims in state court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing an order sustaining a city's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissing a complaint to the extent that the order denied the plaintiff leave to amend in an action relating to an agreement between an energy company and a city whose terms may have violated the California Constitution because a quasi-contractual restitution claim would be permitted even if the Payments Clause at issue is unconstitutional.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the trial court's denial of a writ petition and declaratory and injunctive relief in the case of a city project because the trial court's dismantling of agreements entered into by an earlier administration and agency unconstitutionally impaired a private developer's contractual rights.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the trial court's denial of a writ petition and declaratory and injunctive relief in the case of a city project because the trial court's dismantling of agreements entered into by an earlier administration and agency unconstitutionally impaired a private developer's contractual rights.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the portion of a judgment commanding the Department of Finance of California to consider whether certain expenditures fall under the 'goods and services' provision because the failure of the City of Grass Valley to raise the issue in an administrative forum precluded it from trial court relief, but directing the trial court to issue a new writ commanding the Department to consider the City's claim regarding a highway project agreement, and otherwise affirming the denial of the City's petition for writ of mandate in a case relating to the mass dissolution of redevelopment agencies in the state.

(United States Second Circuit) - Denying the petition for mandamus by an insurer that had paid millions on an Employee Theft Insurance policy when the insured company was found to have engaged in corrupt activities such as obtaining bribes and kickbacks from subcontractors to a government contract it held because, even if they had overcome various procedural obstacles, the company's criminal conduct and, by extension, that of the insurer, precluded them from obtaining restitution from an implicated employee, but vacating and remanding an order dismissing the insurer's petition in the employee's forfeiture proceeding because the district court failed to determine whether the company's unclean hands kept it from an equitable remedy.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals dismissing for lack of jurisdiction because the Contract Disputes Act did not provide jurisdiction in a case involving a contract with the Army to establish and operate supply chain during Iraq's reconstruction and that the Board lacked jurisdiction under its charter and partially dismissing because the decision was not made pursuant under the CDA, so the court lacked jurisdiction to review.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that the U.S. government had breached certain World War II-era contracts with several oil companies. In this long-running litigation, the oil companies claimed that the federal government, which had sued them for hazardous waste cleanup, was partly liable for the cleanup costs due to language in their 1940s government contracts to produce aviation fuel for the war effort. The Court of Federal Claims agreed with the oil companies and awarded them nearly $100 million in contract damages, collectively. The federal government appealed, but the Federal Circuit affirmed.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a False Claims Act lawsuit alleging fraud in connection with the sale of pharmaceutical drugs to nursing homes. The defendant company, which owns and operates institutional pharmacies, argued for dismissal of the qui tam action on the ground that the allegation was already known to the public, and the district court agreed. Reversing and remanding, the Third Circuit held that the relator's allegation had not previously been publicly disclosed.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer of military aircraft that was sued in state court in an asbestos-related personal injury action was entitled to remove the case under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. section 1442(a), based on the assertion of a government contractor defense. Reversed the district court.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a former qui tam relator was not entitled to share in the government's recovery against a company under the False Claims Act in light of his prior voluntary dismissal of his qui tam action.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the statute of limitations in qui tam lawsuits. Justice Thomas delivered the Court's unanimous opinion in this case involving the False Claims Act.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an arbitrator's decision in favor of a builder in a dispute with a community association over alleged defects in construction. The association, consisting of residential condominium units, argued that its arbitration claim should not have been dismissed on summary judgment even though the association had filed the claim without first receiving the consent of its members, in violation of its declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Agreeing with the builder, the California Fourth Appellate District affirmed denial of the association's motion to vacate the arbitrator's decision.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that California did not violate the Equal Protection Clause when it adopted a 2015 amendment that conferred prevailing-wage protections on delivery drivers of ready-mix concrete. Reversed a summary judgment decision in this case involving a law that guarantees a special minimum wage to workers employed on public-works projects.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a construction contractor was entitled to recover attorney fees he incurred in seeking to enforce his right to arbitrate a claim that an Indian tribe failed to pay him for his work.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the California Coastal Commission did not act contrary to law in refusing to certify the San Diego Unified Port District's proposed master plan amendment authorizing a hotel development project, in a reversal of the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a general building contractor did not file a timely court challenge to a citation issued by government inspectors who found a safety violation at a job site. Affirmed dismissal of the contractor's petition for a writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an electrical contractor could not proceed with its lawsuit challenging a state licensing board's disciplinary decision, because the contractor was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before filing suit. Granted the licensing board's petition for a writ of mandate.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Secretary of Labor has authority under the OSHA statute to issue a citation to a general contractor at a multi-employer construction worksite who controls a hazardous condition at that worksite, even if the condition affects another employer's employees. Criticized a circuit precedent, Melerine v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 659 F.2d 706 (5th Cir. 1981), which had held that the Act protects only an employer's employees.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that insurers could not sue a construction subcontractor to recover attorney fees and costs incurred in defending developers in a prior construction defect action, under the facts here. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a general contractor could not proceed with its breach-of-contract and other claims against an insurance company that had issued surety bonds in connection with several federal construction projects. Affirmed dismissal of the general contractor's claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a decision of the Contractors' State License Board finding that a large contracting company violated California law by failing to obtain a building permit before replacing a boiler. Affirmed the denial of the company's writ petition.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) issued in connection with a planned retirement community must be revised. The Sierra Club and others argued that the EIR lacked sufficient discussion of the project's air quality impacts. The California Supreme Court's opinion addressed some broad issues regarding judicial review of the adequacy of EIRs.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an administrative decision by the Santa Monica Community College District to allow a contractor to replace one subcontractor with another subcontractor on a construction project. Affirmed the denial of the plaintiff subcontractor's writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order voiding a default judgment on procedural grounds. Held that the complaint did not provide adequate notice to sustain a default because it failed to specify the amount of damages that the plaintiff was seeking, and instead merely prayed for "damages according to proof," in this lawsuit related to the construction of a hotel.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a citizen group could not proceed with its claims that the City of Los Angeles engaged in a pattern and practice of illegally exempting certain development projects in Venice from permitting requirements contained in the California Coastal Act and the Venice Land Use Plan. Affirmed summary judgment for city.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups lacked a valid basis to challenge a city council's decision to approve the construction of an eight-unit multifamily residential building. Affirmed denial of a writ petition, in a case involving compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a subcontractor could not proceed with its lawsuit against a general contractor seeking payment for work on a project to build public schools. The subcontractor did not properly comply with the notice requirements of the Louisiana Public Works Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an arbitrator made an "irrational" decision in a contract dispute between two government contractors. Affirmed the district court's vacatur of the arbitration award, in this case involving contracts to construct buildings and facilities in Afghanistan.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a construction business that ceased operations and cut off its pension contributions was subject to withdrawal liability under ERISA's Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of a labor union pension fund.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a neighborhood organization could not stop the construction of three new single-family homes in a certain location, despite alleged violations of zoning and environmental laws. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a donut shop that was condemned through eminent domain because it was in the path of a proposed rail line was entitled to compensation for its lost goodwill. Reversed and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a subcontractor hired to install utility boxes in a residential subdivision had a contractual duty to defend the developer from a personal injury claim alleging that the plaintiff fell into a defectively constructed utility box. Reversed and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld San Francisco's decision to order a prime contractor on a public works project to replace a subcontractor. Reversed the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an environmental group could not proceed with its challenge to a county's approval of a private company's plan to build a rock quarry and related facilities. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups could not proceed with their challenge to the environmental review conducted for a proposed mixed-use development project in downtown San Francisco. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a contractor breached its contract with a subcontractor. Affirmed a judgment after a jury trial but remanded for recalculation of damages under the Louisiana Prompt Payment Act, in this case involving an Army Corps of Engineers' project.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a construction company's surety (an insurance company) may not augment its contractual indemnification rights with the ancient doctrine of quia timet -- equitable protection from probable future harm. The construction company allegedly had gone belly up on a government project. Affirmed summary judgment against the surety's claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an anti-SLAPP motion was not frivolous. The motion was filed by the real parties in interest in a mandamus proceeding concerning permits for a real estate development project. Reversed a sanctions order.