ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

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...

---

New York Climate Superfund Rulings Put Vermont Law in Focus

October 20, 2026 — Amanda G. Halter, Ashleigh K. Myers, Jillian Marullo & Marcus Manca - Pillsbury
A second federal judge has struck down New York’s Climate Change Superfund Act and barred its enforcement. On September 23, 2026, Judge P. Kevin Castel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision granting summary judgment to the United States and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), declaring the Act unconstitutional, and permanently enjoining New York officials from enforcing it in United States v. New York, No. 1:25-cv-03656 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2026). Judge Castel’s decision closely tracks the Northern District of New York’s August 31 decision in West Virginia v. James, Case No. 1:25-cv-00168 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2026). Both courts held that the Clean Air Act (CAA) preempts New York’s effort to impose strict liability through a climate attribution and cost recovery framework based on interstate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Both also held that the foreign affairs doctrine preempts the Act as applied to fossil fuel activity outside the United States. On September 24, the Northern District entered Rule 54(b) judgment implementing its August 31 decision, enjoining Attorney General Letitia James and DEC Commissioner Amanda Lefton from implementing or enforcing the Act and permitting an immediate appeal of the preemption claims. Reprinted courtesy of Amanda G. Halter, Pillsbury, Ashleigh K. Myers, Pillsbury, Jillian Marullo, Pillsbury and Marcus Manca, Pillsbury Ms. Halter may be contacted at amanda.halter@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Myers may be contacted at ashleigh.myers@pillsburylaw.com Ms. Marullo may be contacted at jillian.marullo@pillsburylaw.com Mr. Manca may be contacted at marcus.manca@pillsburylaw.com Read the full story...

---

Newmeyer Dillion Ranked in Chambers Spotlight California 2026 Guide

May 26, 2026 — Newmeyer Dillion
NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. – May 14, 2026 - Prominent business and real estate law firm Newmeyer Dillion has been ranked in Chambers Spotlight California 2026 guide and recognized as a leading firm in Litigation: General Commercial for Orange County. Newmeyer Dillion was selected based on an independent and in-depth market analysis, coupled with an assessment of the firm’s experience, expertise and caliber of talent where the firm stood out for its exceptional work and is recognized in Litigation: General Commercial. Managing Partner Paul Tetzloff expressed the firm's gratitude: “It is an honor for our firm to be recognized by Chambers and Partners in their Spotlight California 2026 guide. This acknowledgment reflects our commitment to providing high quality legal services tailored to the unique needs of our clients.” Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Newmeyer Dillion

---

Key Person Provisions in Construction Contracts: Because People, Not Companies, Build Projects

October 27, 2026 — Nate Simon - Construction Executive
In construction, the person running your job matters: the project manager who sat in your preconstruction meetings, who understands the phasing, who knows why the MEP coordination sequence was set up the way it was, who has relationships with your team and the owner’s team. That person is not interchangeable. And if they disappear six weeks into the job and get replaced by someone who’s never read the drawings, you have a problem. This happens all the time. A contractor or consultant sells the A-team—the experienced project manager; the sharp superintendent; the people who won the job—during the proposal and interview. Then, once the contract is signed, those people quietly get moved to a larger project, not out of anything nefarious, but usually out of a necessity. A fire happens on another project and they are needed to put it out. By the time you realize those working on your project aren’t the ones you originally signed on, you’re three months in and the damage is already underway. Reprinted courtesy of Nate Simon, Construction Executive, a publication of Associated Builders and Contractors. All rights reserved. Read the full story...
Mr. Simon may be contacted at nate@simonlawky.com

---

Owner Taking Assignment of General Contractor’s Claims Against a Subcontractor(s)

September 21, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
Here’s a scenario that occurs in construction defect cases. An owner sues a general contractor and subs for construction defects. The owner settles with a number of parties and takes an assignment of the general contractor’s claims against some or all of the subs and pursues the remaining parties for indemnity based on the assignment of the general contractor’s claims. This was the scenario in Craftsman Plastering and Lath, Inc. v. Rath Mor, LLC, 2026 WL 2328032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). The owner settled with the general contractor and all subs except one. The owner took an assignment of the general contractor’s claim against the sub, and really the indemnity claim. The owner was then substituted as the real party in interest as it relates to the general contractor’s claims against the sub. The owner sought roughly $780,000 in attorney’s fees and costs in connection with the dispute claiming the sub was liable for such fees. The jury didn’t buy the argument and awarded the owner about $55,000. Basically, the jury seemingly prorated the fees by the number of parties, at least, that’s how the math worked out. The owner didn’t like that and moved for an additur to increase the jury’s verdict which the trial court granted. This was reversed on appeal despite the fact that a trial court has broad discretion to grant a motion for additur. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Oracle's $16B Michigan Data Center Secures Financing as Power Contracts Face Appeals

June 08, 2026 — Bryan Gottlieb - Engineering News-Record
A $16 billion hyperscale data center under construction outside Ann Arbor, Mich., has secured financing backed by Blackstone and other institutional investors, even as the project's power supply agreements now face a legal challenge before the Michigan Court of Appeals. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Bryan Gottlieb, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Gottlieb may be contacted at gottliebb@enr.com

---

Miller Act Payment Bond Claim “No Nos!”

October 06, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
A recent federal district court opinion, Sauer Construction, LLC v. United Structures of Georgia, LLC, 2026 WL 2522849 (M.D.Fla. 2026), addressed two worthy considerations when it comes to a Miller Act payment bond claim. And, when I am talking about considerations, I am really talking about “no-nos.” These are things you don’t do. First, don’t file an untimely Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. Make sure, as a claimant, you file that lawsuit within one year from your final furnishing. In this case, the subcontractor claimant did not and tried to argue around the statute of limitations with an equitable tolling argument, i.e., that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled to accommodate the late filing of the lawsuit. Guess what? The subcontractor was not successful. You are fighting an uphill (losing) battle when arguing equitable tolling because “traditional equitable tolling principles require that the claimant demonstrate extraordinary circumstances, such as fraud, misinformation, or deliberate concealment.” Sauer Construction, supra. This means you need ultra-persuasive evidence to support such equitable tolling principles. Actually, having this evidence is doubtful. Thus, timely file the Miller Act payment bond lawsuit. There is no legitimate reason not to. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Not All Warranty E-Mails Are Notices of Claim

October 20, 2026 — David McLain - Colorado Construction Litigation Blog
There is a frustrating tendency in some Colorado construction defect litigation to treat virtually any written complaint about construction work as a statutory notice of claim under the Construction Defect Action Reform Act (“CDARA”). An e-mail complaining about cracked concrete. A request for warranty service. A message asking a builder to come inspect a leaking window. Years later, when the homeowner faces a statute-of-limitations defense, these routine communications are suddenly characterized as statutory notices of claim, with the convenient consequence that an otherwise untimely lawsuit becomes timely. Enough is enough. A warranty complaint is not a statutory notice of claim simply because a homeowner complains about construction. Courts and arbitrators should stop treating the two as interchangeable. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC
Mr. McLain may be contacted at mclain@hhmrlaw.com

---