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...

---

Navigating Timelines and Technology: Patent Strategies for Space and Earth

June 01, 2026 — Kate Nuehring Su & Vanessa Wang - Engineering News-Record
More than half a century after the Apollo 11 landing fulfilled President John F. Kennedy’s bold vision, the global race back to the Moon is no longer theoretical. With renewed attention on NASA’s Artemis program and a surge of commercial investment in space infrastructure, lunar exploration is again shaping technology priorities here on Earth. Reprinted courtesy of Kate Nuehring Su, Engineering News-Record and Vanessa Wang, Engineering News-Record Read the full story...
ENR may be contacted at enr@enr.com

---

We Won’t Permit That Excuse!

June 23, 2026 — Curt Martin & Richard Eiszner - ConsensusDocs
A Texas appellate court recently ruled that a building permit wasn’t a condition precedent for a construction project. That caught our attention. Can you build a commercial project without a permit? But as we read the case, we see the court’s reasoning. And it reminds us of an important legal principle that should inform our contract drafting and negotiation. The case was a civil suit brought by the project owner against its tenant improvement contractor for work on a medical spa. The owner claimed that the contractor didn’t perform the work properly and didn’t finish construction. The contractor argued that delays and problems were caused by the owner, alleging numerous failures, including the owner’s failure to secure a building permit. Reprinted courtesy of Curt Martin, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Richard Eiszner, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Martin may be contacted at cmartin@pecklaw.com Mr. Eiszner may be contacted at reiszner@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

USDOT’s DBE Interim Final Rule: How It Affects Current and Out-to-Bid DOT and Airport Projects

June 15, 2026 — Zachary F. Jacobson - The Construction Seyt
In our April 16, 2026 post, we discussed the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Interim Final Rule (IFR) concerning Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) certification, specifically as it concerns transportation and airport projects in California. This post addresses a broader question: What does the IFR mean for current and out-to-bid DOT projects operating under pre-existing DBE goals? The answer is that the IFR did more than change who qualifies as a DBE. It also changed how federally funded transportation and airport projects must be handled during the re-evaluation period. This affects active contracts, pending procurements, airport projects, design-build teams, and anyone relying on old assumptions about DBE goals and counting of DBE and ACDBE credit. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Zachary F. Jacobson, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Mr. Jacobson may be contacted at zjacobson@seyfarth.com

---

Cross-Office Team Secures Litigation Stay and Order of Arbitration on Behalf of Hotel Developer

February 17, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois Newsroom
New York Partner Minyao Wang, Chicago Partner Bryan Sugar, and Denver/Washington, D.C. Partner Christopher Wood secured a victory on behalf of Lewis Brisbois’ client, a hotel developer, when the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois granted the client’s motion to dismiss and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration. In this matter, the 39 plaintiffs, represented by a New York based law firm that focuses on EB-5 litigation against high-end real estate developers, were foreign nationals living in China or Taiwan who were seeking EB-5 visas and invested in a lending company. The lending company loaned money to entities that were managing a project that involved renovating a hotel and constructing a mixed-use tower in downtown Chicago. Disputes developed among the parties. The foreign investors organized informally and ultimately filed suit against Lewis Brisbois’ client, alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, conversion, and conspiracy, as well as aiding and abetting conversion. The defendants faced exposure of at least $20 million. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

U.S. Supreme Court Decision May Negate State Law Requirement to File a Certificate of Merit with the Complaint in a Federal Action Against a Design Professional

April 27, 2026 — Christopher Olsen & Phillip Boldt - ConsensusDocs
To deter frivolous and unfounded claims against design professionals, states throughout the country have enacted statutes which generally require litigants to furnish a formal certification of merit (“COM”) from a qualified expert or face potential dismissal of their lawsuit. These COM statutes can impose a significant front-end burden on claimants who must pay an expert to review project records, interview the project team, and prepare a formal report before the lawsuit can be filed—often regardless of the amount in controversy. However, in light of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in a medical malpractice case, most, if not all of these statutes, may no longer be enforceable in federal court. This article examines the recent decision in Berk v. Choy, 146 S. Ct. 546 (2026), the decisions thus far which have applied Berk to invalidate COM statutes, and other categories of statutes applicable to the construction industry which may face a similar fate. The U.S. Supreme Court Decision (Berk v. Choy) In Berk, the plaintiff, Harold Berk, sued a doctor for medical malpractice under Delaware law in Delaware federal court. 146 S. Ct. at 551. Under Del. Code, Tit. 18, § 6853(a)(1), an affidavit of merit (like a COM) must accompany a complaint alleging medical malpractice. Id. Berk failed to include an affidavit of merit with his complaint. Id. at 552. Applying Delaware state law, the federal court dismissed Berk’s medical malpractice claim. Berk appealed to the Third Circuit, arguing that the affidavit of merit required by § 6853(a)(1) is unenforceable in federal court because it is more onerous than the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling, finding § 6853(a)(1) enforceable in federal court. Reprinted courtesy of Christopher Olsen, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. and Phillip Boldt, Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Mr. Olsen may be contacted at colsen@pecklaw.com Mr. Boldt may be contacted at pboldt@pecklaw.com Read the full story...

---

FTC Issues Warning Letters to Property Management Software Providers on Price Transparency

January 26, 2026 — Christine Tenley, Patrick A. Garcia & Michael Hettig - Lewis Brisbois
Atlanta, Ga. (December 23, 2025) - On December 8, 2025 the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sent what it is describing as a “Warning Letter” to companies that provide property management software to landlords (“Software Providers”). While the letter does not speak specifically to landlords, landlords can still use the information contained in the letter to adopt best practices to avoid potential enforcement action. The Warning Letter references two high profile civil enforcement actions the FTC has undertaken in the last two years: FTC v. Invitation Homes, and FTC v. Greystar Real Estate Partners, LLC, et al., two cases in which the FTC targeted landlords for what it deemed unfair or deceptive advertising practices. Citing those cases, the FTC warns software providers that they must provide platforms on which landlords can accurately advertise the total monthly cost of a rental property rather than simply advertising the monthly rental payment. The FTC then warns that failure to create platforms that share the total monthly payments may result in enforcement action. Reprinted courtesy of Christine Tenley, Lewis Brisbois, Patrick A. Garcia, Lewis Brisbois and Michael Hettig, Lewis Brisbois Ms. Tenley may be contacted at Christine.Tenley@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Garcia may be contacted at Patrick.Garcia@lewisbrisbois.com Mr. Hettig may be contacted at Michael.Hettig@lewisbrisbois.com Read the full story...

---

Pulling the Plug, Preserving the Product: Protecting Rights to a Modular Subcontractor’s Work Post-Termination

June 08, 2026 — Paul Williamson - ConsensusDocs
Volumetric Modular Construction (VMC) is a building method where a structure is divided into large components or modules, fabricated in an offsite factory and then transported to a construction site for assembly.[1] Proponents of VMC hail it as a cost-efficient alternative to traditional building methods that leads to more consistent quality and shorter construction duration.[2] Due to a growing labor shortage, high demand for compressed project schedules, and stagnant construction productivity rates, the construction industry is embracing VMC.[3] A recent report on the market size of prefabricated construction estimates that from 2026 to 2031, VMC will grow at a compound annual growth rate of 7.16% and become a 413.11-billion-dollar industry.[4] As VMC becomes more prevalent, owners, general contractors, and subcontractors must consider how to effectively contract for modular construction. One important consideration, which this article focuses on, is navigating termination of a modular subcontractor. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Paul Williamson, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.
Mr. Williamson may be contacted at pwilliamson@pecklaw.com

---