Anaheim California Construction Expert Witness Directory

GRSM Named Among 2026 “Best Law Firms” by Best Lawyers®

December 08, 2025 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani has been recognized in the 2026 “Best Law Firms” survey published by Best Lawyers®. To be eligible for a 2026 ranking, a law firm must have at least one lawyer recognized in the 2026 edition of the Best Lawyers in America® in a “Best Law Firms” practice area and geographic jurisdiction. GRSM announced earlier this year that 172 lawyers were recognized in the 2026 edition of Best Lawyers in America®, while 69 lawyers were named to the 2026 edition of Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch. Explore the full list of GRSM recognized attorneys. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

Fort Lauderdale Team Secures Appellate Win Affirming Defense Verdict for Engineering Firm in High-Stakes Negligence Case

November 04, 2025 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (October 1, 2025) - Fort Lauderdale Managing Partner Cheryl Wilke and Partner Alexander Harne secured an appellate victory from the Fifth District Court of Appeal affirming a complete defense verdict for their clients, civil engineering firm Gulfstream Design Group and its owner, Matthew Lahti, in a high-stakes professional negligence case in which the plaintiff had sought more than $20 million. The case involved a 100-acre tract of land in St. Johns County, Florida, owned by the plaintiff. The land was zoned for rural farming, and she wished to sell the property for development. She entered into a contract with Southeast Georgia Acquisitions (“SGA”) to sell the property with the goal of creating a 200-home subdivision. SGA hired Doug Burnett as land use counsel and our client, Gulfstream Design Group, as the civil engineer to design the project. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

End of an (Endangerment) Era

February 23, 2026 — Sukhmani K. Singh, Christopher P. Colyer & Sean M. Sherlock - Snell & Wilmer
On February 12, 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced the repeal of the 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and the elimination of all federal GHG emission standards for motor vehicles and engines.1 The EPA characterized the action as the “single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.”2 This development marks a fundamental shift in federal climate policy under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and is expected to trigger immediate and extensive litigation. In Massachusetts v. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court held that GHGs qualify as “air pollutants” under the CAA and that the EPA must determine whether emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare under CAA Section 202(a).3 Following this decision, on December 7, 2009, the EPA issued two findings. First, the EPA classified six different GHGs as threatening public health and welfare. Second, the EPA determined that emissions from new motor vehicles contribute to that endangerment.4 Although the findings themselves imposed no direct regulatory requirements, they served as the legal predicate for GHG emission standards for light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles, and later for other CAA programs affecting statutory sources. In 2012, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the Endangerment Finding and related regulations.5 Reprinted courtesy of Sukhmani K. Singh, Snell & Wilmer, Christopher P. Colyer, Snell & Wilmer and Sean M. Sherlock, Snell & Wilmer Ms. Singh may be contacted at ssingh@swlaw.com Mr. Colyer may be contacted at ccolyer@swlaw.com Mr. Sherlock may be contacted at ssherlock@swlaw.com Read the full story...

AI as Co-Counsel: How Litigators Can Leverage AI for Depositions, Experts, and Trial Preparation

November 21, 2025 — Debrán O’Neil - The Dispute Resolver
Artificial intelligence is everywhere right now, and the legal industry is no exception. It’s a regular feature at CLEs and in client discussions because lawyers are discovering that careful use can save both time and money. But AI is no longer reserved for e-discovery vendors. Litigators are using AI for trial preparation—helping identify themes, test case theories, summarize voluminous records, refine expert testimony, and streamline depositions. While AI is not able to read a witness, gauge credibility, or build trust with a jury like lawyers, it can make preparation more efficient and thorough and help present information in a more digestible and compelling way. Below are practical ways litigators can weave AI into their everyday litigation practice and not get left behind. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Debrán O’Neil, Carrington, Coleman, Sloman & Blumenthal, L.L.P.
Ms. O'Neil may be contacted at doneil@ccsb.com

California Enacts Change Order Fair Payment Act

March 24, 2026 — Michael J. Baker - Snell & Wilmer
For private works construction contracts entered on or after January 1, 2026, recent legislation establishes a claims and dispute resolution process for change orders. The law is codified at Civil Code § 8850. A synopsis of the pertinent provisions includes the following:

Submitting a Claim. Contractors or subcontractors must submit a detailed, documented claim when requesting additional time or payment.
Owner’s Response Time. The owner must meet and confer within thirty (30) days after receiving the claim. Within ten (10) days of meeting, the owner must provide a written statement identifying which portions of the claim are undisputed and which are disputed. An owner’s failure to respond is treated as disputing the entire claim.

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Michael J. Baker, Snell & Wilmer
Mr. Baker may be contacted at mjbaker@swlaw.com

9204 Meet 8850. Public Works Claims Processes Now Apply to Private Works, With Some Differences

November 21, 2025 — Garret Murai - California Construction Law Blog
Contractors working on public works projects are likely familiar with the statutory claims resolution process under Public Contract Code section 9204. Section 9204, which went into effect in 2017, and which has been amended a couple of times since, provides a claims resolution process for public works projects with the goal of resolving claims before litigation. Section 9204, which currently expires on January 1, 2027 (it has been extended once so far), provides for a three-step process: (1) submission of a claim by the prime contractor and response by the public entity; (2) if the claim is rejected in whole or in part by the public entity, a meet and confer conference between the prime contractor and public entity; and (3) if the claim is not resolved at the meet and confer conference, mediation (or other non-binding dispute resolution process) between the prime contractor and public entity. A similar statutory claims resolution process has now been enacted that applies to most private works projects. The bill, Senate Bill 440, goes into effect on January 1, 2026, and is codified at new Civil Code section 8850. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Garret Murai, Nomos LLP
Mr. Murai may be contacted at gmurai@nomosllp.com

Why and When Construction Robotics Makes Sense

February 10, 2026 — Aarni Heiskanen - AEC Business
In construction, robotics is often discussed in terms of technology: better AI, more capable machines, and robots on job sites. Recent research suggests that the question is less about whether robots can work and more about when and why they deliver real value. An Aalto University research paper on computer-vision-driven robotic waste sorting offers a valuable lens into this. The researchers use ZenRobotics’ computer-vision-enabled automated system as a case study. The Finnish startup was acquired by Terex, a U.S. company, in 2022. At first glance, waste sorting might seem like a niche application. But it illustrates a broader economic logic that aligns with findings across the broader body of research on construction robotics. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Aarni Heiskanen, AEC Business
Mr. Heiskanen may be contacted at aec-business@aepartners.fi

California Court Affirms $1.8 Million Judgment Against HOA for Failing to Investigate and Remediate Water Intrusion

November 04, 2025 — Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP
When an HOA ignores its duties under its covenants and restrictions, the consequences can be devastating. In Ridley v. Rancho Palma Grande Homeowners Association (Cal. Ct. App., Aug. 28, 2025, No. H052560), a Santa Clara couple secured a $1.8 million judgment after their condominium was rendered uninhabitable due to water intrusion, mold, and a sinkhole caused by an abandoned well beneath the property. The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment, finding that the HOA’s delay, deception, and failure to act breached its duties under the CC&Rs. What Went Wrong at Rancho Palma Grande HOA Retirees Doug Ridley and Sherry Shen owned a condominium in Santa Clara County. In 2018, their tenants discovered persistent water pooling in the crawlspace beneath the unit - part of the building’s common area under the HOA’s control. The issue worsened over time, culminating in severe water damage, mold growth, and ultimately, a sinkhole beneath the living room floor. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Haight Brown & Bonesteel LLP

ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES