ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Texas Adopts New Procedural Rules for Summary Judgment Motions: What You Need To Know

July 13, 2026 — Conor G. Bateman & Marsha Cotton - Snell & Wilmer
On March 1, 2026, sweeping amendments to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a took effect, fundamentally changing how Texas courts handle summary judgment motions — from filing and briefing through disposition. Whether representing a plaintiff or defendant, Texas litigants and attorneys must understand these new rules and their impact on case strategy and timelines. These procedural changes carry particular significance for construction litigants. Background: The Prior Rule Texas summary judgment practice has long diverged from the federal model. The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure recognize two types of summary judgment motions: (1) the traditional motion for summary judgment, and (2) the “no-evidence” motion for summary judgment. The no-evidence motion — unique to Texas — may be filed only after adequate time for discovery has passed. No bright-line rule governs that determination; it depends on the unique circumstances of each case. Reprinted courtesy of Conor G. Bateman, Snell & Wilmer and Marsha Cotton, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Bateman may be contacted at cbateman@swlaw.com Ms. Cotton may be contacted at mcotton@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

Nationwide Preliminary Injunction Ordering Department of Defense to Resume Review of Wind Energy Projects

September 21, 2026 — Victor J. Roehm III, Christopher P. Colyer & Sara M. Ajeti - Snell & Wilmer
On August 6, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon granted a preliminary injunction in Renewable Northwest v. Hegseth, Case No. 3:26-cv-01092-IM, ordering the Department of Defense (DoD) to resume processing wind energy project applications under the existing statutory and regulatory framework and staying DoD’s review freeze pending final adjudication on the merits. Background In 2011, Congress created the Military Aviation and Installation Assurance Siting Clearinghouse (Clearinghouse) within DoD to review wind energy projects that might affect military operations. When a wind project developer files an application with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the FAA refers it to DoD to determine whether the project poses an “unacceptable risk to the national security.” Reprinted courtesy of Victor J. Roehm III, Snell & Wilmer, Christopher P. Colyer, Snell & Wilmer and Sara M. Ajeti, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Roehm may be contacted at vroehm@swlaw.com Mr. Colyer may be contacted at ccolyer@swlaw.com Ms. Ajeti may be contacted at sajeti@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

Snell & Wilmer’s Orange County Office Recognized as One of the “Best Places to Work” by the Orange County Business Journal

August 16, 2026 — Snell & Wilmer
ORANGE COUNTY – Snell & Wilmer is pleased to announce that its Orange County office has been selected as one of the 2026 “Best Places to Work in Orange County” by the Orange County Business Journal. This recognition honors outstanding employers that foster exceptional workplace cultures and demonstrate a strong commitment to employee engagement, professional development, and organizational excellence. The annual awards recognize Orange County employers that create positive workplace environments and set the standard for employee satisfaction and organizational success. Honorees are selected through a comprehensive evaluation process that includes confidential employee surveys and an independent assessment of company policies, practices, philosophy, systems, and demographics. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Snell & Wilmer

---

Brenda Radmacher Authors Chapter in ABA Publication on Construction Delays

May 26, 2026 — Brenda Radmacher - The Construction Seyt
Brenda Radmacher, a partner in Seyfarth’s Construction Law practice and a mediator and arbitrator serving on the American Arbitration Association’s panels, is among the contributing authors to the American Bar Association’s forthcoming guide on construction disputes: Time – The Legal Implications of Project Delay in Construction. Drawing on three decades of experience, Radmacher authors Chapter 8, Contractor Delay Damages, offering practical insight into one of the most contested issues in construction litigation and arbitration. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Brenda Radmacher, Seyfarth Shaw LLP

---

When Arbitrators Overreach: Utah Supreme Court Trims an Award Built on an Unpled Claim

November 02, 2026 — Tyson J. Prisbrey & Mark O. Morris - Snell & Wilmer
Construction industry participants have long favored arbitration to resolve disputes, prizing its speed, confidentiality, and finality over traditional litigation. That finality, however, depends on arbitrators staying within the bounds of what the parties actually put before them. In RV Holdings 4, LLC, et al. v. Standard Fiber Investors, LLC, the Utah Supreme Court issued a rare rebuke of an arbitration award, holding that the arbitrator exceeded their authority by awarding damages on a claim the prevailing party never submitted for decision. The dispute arose from a management-fee relationship between Standard Fiber, a bedding manufacturer, and several affiliated “Ridgeview” entities that provided financial and accounting oversight services. After Standard Fiber stopped paying management fees in 2020, the parties pursued their claims in arbitration. Ridgeview’s arbitration demand sought recovery under two specific theories: that a 2006 management services agreement remained in effect, and alternatively, that an oral “50/50 Agreement” entitled it to a share of fees paid to an affiliated entity. Notably, Ridgeview never asserted a claim for breach of a separate 2014 fee arrangement, and affirmatively disavowed reliance on it. The arbitrator rejected both of Ridgeview’s submitted theories and instead awarded Ridgeview $725,000 based on that unpled 2014 agreement. The district court confirmed the award, concluding that the arbitrator’s decision was rationally related to the parties’ arguments, including evidence Standard Fiber itself introduced about the 2014 arrangement. Reprinted courtesy of Tyson J. Prisbrey, Snell & Wilmer and Mark O. Morris, Snell & Wilmer Mr. Prisbrey may be contacted at tprisbrey@swlaw.com Mr. Morris may be contacted at mmorris@swlaw.com Read the full story...

---

The Drawing Changed. Did You Catch It? A Hard Lesson for Contractors About Revised Plans

November 09, 2026 — Matthew J. Devries - Best Practices Construction Law Blog
Every contractor has seen it. A revised drawing hits your inbox. You open the sheet, look for the clouds, figure out what changed, and move on. But what if something changed outside the cloud? That seemingly simple question became a very expensive problem in Young Contracting/SE, Inc. v. Pitt Excavating, LLC, (Oct. 30, 2026), a recent Tennessee Court of Appeals decision involving a general contractor and its excavation subcontractor. The subcontract required Pitt to perform its work in accordance with the project drawings and specifications, “as amended from time to time.” During the project, Young sent Pitt a revised drawing. Pitt’s owner testified that his practice was to look at the clouded areas because he understood those areas to identify what had changed. He explained that he presumed the rest of the drawing remained the same. Guess what? That assumption did not work out well. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Matthew J. Devries, Buchalter
Mr. Devries may be contacted at mdevries@buchalter.com

---

GRSM Trial Team Holds Alameda County Asbestos Verdict to $900,000 Against $50 Million Demand

July 27, 2026 — Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Partners John Katerndahl and Vincent Gunter recently obtained an outstanding trial result for a manufacturer of asbestos-containing electrical cable, holding a jury verdict to $900,000 against a $50 million demand following an eight-week trial in Alameda County Superior Court, which is among the most challenging asbestos venues in the country. The GRSM team also included Associate Brandon Sanchez, on-site trial Paralegal Laura Vitanova, and Paralegal Kerrie Lease. The plaintiffs, the surviving spouse and four children of a former painter who died of mesothelioma, alleged that the decedent was exposed to asbestos from the company’s electrical cable during construction of a California nuclear power facility. GRSM’s client was the sole remaining defendant at trial. The plaintiffs asked the jury for $50 million and called 15 witnesses across their case-in-chief and rebuttal. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani

---

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...

---