Arizona Court of Appeals Clarifies Homeowners Association Open Meeting Requirements
June 29, 2026 —
Jill Casson Owen, Benjamin J. Hawkins & Stephen Wright - Snell & WilmerA Z N H Revocable Trust v. Sunland Springs Village Homeowners Association, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0424 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2026)
OVERVIEW
The Arizona Court of Appeals issued an opinion clarifying how homeowners associations must conduct meetings under A.R.S. § 33-1804. The decision reinforces the legislative policy favoring transparency in association governance, bringing association meeting requirements more in line with the open meeting standards applicable to public bodies under A.R.S. § 38-431 et seq. (Arizona’s Open Meeting Law).
KEY HOLDINGS
1. All Voting and Formal Actions Must Occur in Open Meetings
The Court affirmed that association boards cannot vote or take formal action during closed (executive) sessions. Under A.R.S. § 33-1804(A), associations may close portions of meetings only for “consideration” of certain enumerated topics, such as legal advice, pending litigation, or personal/financial information about individual members. The Court interpreted “consideration” to mean discussion and deliberation, not voting. The Court noted that dictionaries define “consider” as “spending time thinking about a possibility” and “formulating an opinion,” which are processes that precede formal action. This interpretation mirrors how Arizona’s Open Meeting Law (A.R.S. § 38-431.03(D)) prohibits public bodies from voting in executive session.
Reprinted courtesy of
Jill Casson Owen, Snell & Wilmer,
Benjamin J. Hawkins, Snell & Wilmer and
Stephen Wright, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. Owen may be contacted at jowen@swlaw.com
Mr. Hawkins may be contacted at bhawkins@swlaw.com
Mr. Wright may be contacted at swright@swlaw.com
Read the full story...
New York Enacts First-in-the-Nation Statewide Data Center Moratorium
August 03, 2026 —
Joshua L. Sturtevant - SheppardAs of May 2026, nearly 12 gigawatts of data center load requests were in the New York Independent System Operator interconnection queue, with more than two-thirds of capacity requests entering the queue in 2025 alone. On July 14, 2026, in response to concerns over this rapid growth, Governor Kathy Hochul issued Executive Order No. 62 (the “Order”) imposing a temporary moratorium on data centers in New York State. Among the concerns cited in the Order are the cost burden on ratepayers associated with transmission upgrades required to accommodate large loads, potential environmental impacts, and large-scale water use.
The moratorium is intended to halt activities while the state government develops a comprehensive legal framework for data center development. While dozens of municipal and county-level moratoriums are in place throughout the U.S., and while the legislatures of several states, including Maine, have proposed moratoriums, the Order is the first statewide moratorium to be enacted nationally.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Joshua L. Sturtevant, SheppardMr. Sturtevant may be contacted at
jsturtevant@sheppard.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 BlogCalifornia 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 LLPMr. Murai may be contacted at
gmurai@nomosllp.com
GRSM Secures Illinois Appellate Victory for Architectural Firm in Implied Warranty Dispute
May 14, 2026 —
Gordon Rees Scully MansukhaniGordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partner Jonathan Federman, Partner Thomas Cronin, and Senior Counsel Garrett Lee recently secured a victory in the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, on behalf of the firm’s client, an architectural firm, in a liability dispute.
The case arose following an entity’s purchase of a 111-unit building for use as an investment or rental property. The plaintiff made claims against the architect of the building, alleging that there were design defects that breached an implied warranty, as well as a negligence claim.
GRSM argued that an architect could not be liable for implied warranties, particularly for an implied warranty which no Illinois court has ever recognized. GRSM further argued that Illinois law bars an architect from liability for negligence arising from a duty pursuant to contract under the economic loss doctrine.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Nevada’s Mandatory Nonbinding Arbitration Law for Civil Cases is Going Through Changes
May 14, 2026 —
Brandon Wright & Manuel Gurule - Lewis BrisboisNevada currently operates an expedited litigation program designed to resolve civil disputes with a value up to $50,000 without incurring the “usual” expense of litigating these disputes. Over time, however, the number of civil cases that have been “exempted” from this program based on the claimed damages exceeding $50,000 has grown dramatically. In response, the Nevada Legislature recently enacted a number of rule changes designed to streamline Nevada’s arbitration process and include more cases. Among these changes are increasing the arbitration “cap” from $50,000 to $100,000.
By way of background, the Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration program is a mandatory, non-binding program for civil cases in judicial districts that have county populations of 100,000 or more [1]. Nevada’s Court Annexed Arbitration was born out of NRS 38.250, which was enacted in 1991 and went into effect in the summer of 1992. The newly enacted NRS 38.250 was regarded as a way to address the problem of increased court caseloads while promoting judicial economy and efficiency in civil cases having a probable jury award of less than $25,000 [2]. Initially, cases that were automatically exempt from the program included class actions, medical malpractice disputes, divorce proceedings, and other domestic relations matters [3].
Reprinted courtesy of
Brandon Wright, Lewis Brisbois and
Manuel Gurule, Lewis Brisbois
Mr. Wright may be contacted at Brandon.Wright@lewisbrisbois.com
Mr. Gurule may be contacted at Manuel.Gurule@lewisbrisbois.com
Read the full story...
Managing Tariff Volatility in Cross‑Border U.S. Construction Projects: Practical Contract‑Drafting and Procurement Strategies
March 10, 2026 —
Sara Beiro Farabow & Michael Wagner - The Construction SeytVolatile U.S. tariff announcements continue to affect international supply chains for U.S. construction projects. Although recent litigation has centered on the scope of presidential tariff authority rather than construction‑specific disputes, these decisions carry important implications for how parties structure risk in their contracts. In May 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) struck down certain “Liberation Day” tariffs as exceeding presidential authority under IEEPA. A federal district court in Washington, D.C. likewise issued a preliminary injunction suspending related tariffs—though it later stayed its own order pending appeal. And the Supreme Court has agreed to review cases addressing the legal limits of IEEPA‑based tariffs.
While none of these developments arises from construction disputes, the themes they highlight—timing, statutory authority, and documentation—mirror the issues encountered when tariff conditions disrupt international procurement. The following strategies reflect practical steps U.S. project owners, contractors, and foreign suppliers can take to mitigate risk, drawing on drafting approaches now widely used across major construction forms, including—but not limited to—modified AIA agreements.
Reprinted courtesy of
Sara Beiro Farabow, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and
Michael Wagner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Ms. Farabow may be contacted at sfarabow@seyfarth.com
Mr. Wagner may be contacted at mewagner@seyfarth.com
Read the full story...
Prefatory Contract Language Cannot Be Used to Create an Ambiguity with Operative Provisions
May 12, 2026 —
David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal UpdatesContract drafting and interpretation matters.
A case dealt with the potential conflict with prefatory language in an agreement compared with operative provisions in the agreement. The trial court held that the operative provisions control. I discussed this case
here where the appellate court reversed based on the prefatory language.
But, through a motion for rehearing, the appellate court reconsidered its position and affirmed the trial court based on the operative provisions, mainly that the prefatory language cannot be used to create an ambiguity with operative provisions. Consider this explanation in affirming the trial court:
Because the trial court correctly found that the initial language in the contract was prefatory and could not be used to create an ambiguity in the remainder of the contract, we affirm the final judgment.
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
David Adelstein, Kirwin NorrisMr. Adelstein may be contacted at
dma@kirwinnorris.com
Celebrating BWB&O’s 2026 Super Lawyers Rising Stars in San Diego!
March 31, 2026 —
Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLPBremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP is proud to announce that Partners
Jocelyn Russo,
Christina Matian, and Associate
Angelo Perillo have been named to the Super Lawyers 2026 San Diego Rising Stars list. This recognition highlights their outstanding dedication and distinguished service in Family Law, Civil Litigation, and Personal Injury Litigation.
SUPER LAWYERS
Jocelyn Russo: 2023-2026
Christina Matian: 2024-2026
Angelo Perillo: 2024-2026
Read the full story...Reprinted courtesy of
Bremer Whyte Brown & O’Meara, LLP
