ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Wadsworth v. Regional Rail Partners — Verified Statements of Claim Under the Colorado Public Works Act

August 25, 2026 — Olivia Barden - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
Editor’s Note: Wadsworth Revisited In August 2024, following the Colorado Court of Appeals’ decision in Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners, we published Colorado Court of Appeals’ Ruling Highlights Dangers of Excessive Public Works Claims. At the time, the decision warranted a significant warning to contractors and subcontractors performing public work in Colorado. The Court of Appeals concluded that Wadsworth’s verified statement of claim improperly included unliquidated delay damages and that, because the claim was excessive, Wadsworth forfeited its right to recover the amounts included in the claim. We cautioned contractors to carefully scrutinize verified statements of claim and to avoid including unliquidated damages or amounts that were not yet due and payable. The Colorado Supreme Court has now reversed that decision. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Olivia Barden, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC

---

Motion for Summary Judgment Granted in Significant California Public Utilities Suit

May 12, 2026 — Dolores Montoya - Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP
Congratulations to Partner Mike D’Andrea and Associates Ruth Rasiah and Kaylah Abdullah in the Los Angeles office for obtaining a complete dismissal of their clients in a significant claim involving California’s Public Utilities regulations. After lengthy litigation, BWB&O’s Motion for Summary Judgment was granted against Claimant, Spectrum (Charter Communications), which resulted in a complete dismissal of the action against BWB&O’s clients. At issue was whether California’s Public Utilities Code shifted the common law duty to maintain certain utility equipment in residential areas within Southern California. After significant briefing, the Superior Court found that BWB&O correctly argued that the Public Utilities Code required utility companies, like Spectrum, to fully maintain utility equipment, and that private residents are not responsible for utility maintenance (even if the physical equipment is located on private property). Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara LLP

---

Doctrine of Substantial Performance When It Comes to Payment

July 27, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent non-construction case touches upon the doctrine of substantial performance when it comes to payment. In this case, a club was to make two payments to secure a rapper’s attendance. The first payment was made. The second payment was made but was a few hundred dollars short of the agreed amount. The rapper did not show up. The club claimed it substantially performed its obligations. At first glance, the argument makes sense because the second payment fell only a few hundred dollars short. But that wasn’t the case when it comes to pre-commencement payment obligations:

Substantial performance applies only when the variance from the contract terms “is inadvertent or unintentional and unimportant so that the work actually performed is substantially what was called for in the contract.” However, when one party agrees to pay the other on or before a specific date, time is of the essence, and the payor is required to pay the payee on or before that date. “There is almost always no such thing as ‘substantial performance’ of payment between commercial parties when the duty is simply the general one to pay. Payment is either made in the amount and on the date due, or it is not.”

Big Gate Records, LLC v. Washington, 51 Fla.L.Weekly D1281a (Fla. 2nd DCA 2026) (internal citations omitted).

Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

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...

---

Hidden Risks Behind Today’s Stadium Construction Boom

July 20, 2026 — Thomas Strong, Andrew Canning & Marc Gnesin - Construction Executive
After a decade-plus lull, professional sports leagues, universities and municipalities are once again spending heavily on new stadiums and major renovations. In the NFL alone, multiple marquee projects are underway or planned, representing more than $10 billion in facilities and mixed-use entertainment districts, rivaling or exceeding the scale of development during the last stadium-build cycle of the early 2000s. Beneath the excitement of architectural ambition and civic pride lies a risk landscape that has fundamentally changed since the last wave of stadium construction. Teams, cities and contractors that rely on outdated assumptions may find themselves exposed to cost overruns, schedule delays and liabilities that are far more difficult to unwind once construction is underway. Reprinted courtesy of Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...

---

Differing Site Conditions Claim Requires a Misrepresentation

May 14, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
If you are entertaining a differing site conditions claim, consider this Third District Court of Appeals case from the mid-90s. In Hendry Corp. v. Metropolitan Dade County, 648 So.2d 140 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), a contractor was hired by Dade County to demolish the old Rickenbacker Causeway in Miami. The original 1941 plans of the causeway were made available to contractors. The lowest bidding contractor that was awarded the project based its bid “on its conclusion that the pilings supporting the old bridge were made of concrete.” Hendry, supra at 141. The contractor based this conclusion on the original plans, its visual observation, and experience. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.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:

1. First, generally, the claimant must have served a preliminary notice, unless the claimant is a first-tier subcontractor or supplier;
2. The claimant must have “ceased to provide work” on the project; and
3. 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

---

Supply Chain Is a Legal Exposure—Not Just a Force Majeure Problem

September 08, 2026 — Owen Newman - Construction Executive
This is not another force majeure article. The supply-chain related legal exposure that contractors are carrying today—in sanctions risk, specification non-compliance, warranty exposure and regulatory volatility—extends well beyond what even a well-drafted force majeure clause protects. An engineering, procurement and construction contractor on a gas-fired power plant discovers during commissioning that transformer oil in a critical unit contains Russian-origin naphthenic base oil, which is a prohibited source under Office of Foreign Assets Control sanctions. The contractor didn’t source it. A subsupplier two tiers below made the substitution when disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz tightened the primary supply chain for this specialty product and no one in the purchase-order chain flagged it. The procurement decision is long done and the documentation trail that should have caught it doesn’t exist. Reprinted courtesy of Owen Newman, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...
Mr. Newman may be contacted at oknewman@duanemorris.com

---