Articles Posted in Construction Generally

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn recently signed into law Senate Bill 3023 (Public Act 98-764, amending the Illinois Mechanics Lien Act, 770 ILCS 60/ et seq., to provide protection against subordination of mechanics liens on Illinois construction projects. S.B. 3023 makes an express or implied agreement to subordinate a mechanic’s lien, where the agreement is in anticipation of and in consideration for the awarding of a contract or subcontract to perform work or supply materials for an improvement upon real property against public policy and unenforceable, except where the agreement to subordinate a mechanic’s lien to a mortgage lien that secures a construction loan if that agreement is made after more than 50% of the loan has been disbursed to fund improvements to the property. The new law was effective July 16, 2014. This new law represents the culmination of the Illinois legislative efforts over the past few legislative sessions to provide further protection to mechanics lien claimants.

Clients call from time to time with questions about liens that have been filed on their property, or about liens that they want to file. The questions follow a pattern. What is the deadline to file a lien? What about foreclosing? Can a lower tier subcontractor file a lien? Does the lien claimant have to file a preclaim notice? I got one of these questions recently and sent the in house attorney a card stock printout of our quick lien reference chart for the three jurisdictions closest to my office: Virginia, DC, and Maryland. She found it so useful that she put it on her bulletin board in her office.

Given how useful most clients find this information, we decided to post it. You can see it to the right under the “Resources/Links” tab. Our California construction lawyers prepared a similar chart a couple of years ago when California revamped its lien laws. They are going to convert that into a format that looks like the VA/DC/MD one. And then we’ll also prepare one for the northeast, where our New York area construction lawyers frequently answer similar questions.

So, check back for these quick reference charts. We think you’ll find them useful.

On September 30, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected a challenge to the decision of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to withdraw a proposed listing of the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard, a species found in many oil and gas producing areas, as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. The case is Defenders of Wildlife, et al. v. Jewell. The District Court held that the decision of the FWS was lawful, and comported with the requirements of the ESA and the FWS’ and National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) 2003 Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions (PECE) for the Evaluation of Conservation Efforts When Making Listing Decisions. Of particular importance were three conservation mechanisms–the BLM’s Resource Management Plan Amendment, the “New Mexico Agreement”, and the “Texas Plan”. The New Mexico and Texas plans are Candidate Conservation Agreements that the Service approved.

The Texas Comptroller and several oil and gas associations intervened as defendants to support the Service and their own conservation plans. This decision is likely to be appealed, but it certainly seems to strengthen the case for the measures that are being proposed (and challenged) to protect the Lesser Prairie Chicken, a species that was listed as threatened earlier this year.

On September 26, 2014, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, holding that Columbia Gas Transmission Company, an interstate natural gas company regulated by FERC, has the right of eminent domain granted by 15 U.S.C. § 717f(h) to obtain easements over the land of objecting landowners, even when such new easements would be located outside of the existing right of way, in order to replace a deteriorating pipeline that is now located in a heavily populated area of Pennsylvania. The case is Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC v. 1.01 Acres, More or Less in Penn Township, York County, Pennsylvania, Located on Tax ID# 440002800150000000 Owned by Dwayne P. Brown and Ann M. Brown, et al.

To obtain these easements, Columbia filed Complaints of Condemnation in federal court against four landowners. The District Court denied Columbia’s request, holding that the implementing FERC regulation was ambiguous, and the court therefore “looked outside the regulations” and determined that the agency’s interpretation was not entitled to deference. Columbia had received a “blanket” certificate of convenience and necessity from FERC, which the majority of the Court of Appeals held provided the holder of the certificate with the authority to conduct a routine activity of replacement without further authorization by FERC. According to the Court of Appeals , the applicable FERC rule was not ambiguous, and must be enforced, although the Court of Appeals also noted that this right was subject to certain limitations including environmental compliance. Referring to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. E.P.A., 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2442 (2014), the court held that the statute as a whole must be reviewed before its parts could be considered to be ambiguous. Finally, the Court of Appeals granted Columbia’s request for preliminary injunctions, allowing it to take immediate possession of these easements.

The dissenting opinion concluded with this observation: “It is disturbing and encouraging that, by today’s ruling, the Majority endorses a view of delegated sovereign power so broad that a private gas company, with no agency oversight or other significant procedural restraint, can take the property of other citizens far removed from that company’s original right of way”.

UPDATE: Applications for the Position of the Registrar of Contractors must be received by 5:00 p.m. PST on November 17, 2014 and must include all required information.

The California Contractors State License Board invites applications for the position of Registrar of Contractors. The Registrar of Contractors is responsible for, among other things, carrying out the policies of the CSLB and for planning, organizing, and directing CSLB activities in the areas of administration, enforcement, information technology, and licensure. The position is located in Sacramento, California. All submissions must be received by 5:00p.m. on October 15, 2014, and must include both email and telephone contact information. For additional information review the invitation or contact Eileen Fuller at (916) 574-8385.

The current Registrar of Contractors, Steve Sands, announced on April 24, at the CSLB’s quarterly board meeting, that he planned to retire at the end of the year, after being “at the helm” of the CSLB since January 1, 2001.

Additional Resources: California CSLB Registrar of Contractors Announces Departure

A new California law effective July 1, 2015 requires employers to provide at least 3 paid sick days per year. Workers covered by valid collective bargaining agreements meeting certain requirements are exempt, but contractors should review their sick leave policies for all employees to ensure they are in compliance. Please click here for a helpful guide to the new law prepared by Pillsbury’s employment law group.

On September 4, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision rejecting the argument that a Clean Water Act (CWA) “permit shield” required the dismissal of a CWA citizen suit. The case is Alaska Community Action on Toxics, et al. v. Aurora Energy Services, LLC; Alaska Railroad Corporation, which had been argued less than a month before the ruling was made. The defendants own and operate a coal loading facility located on the northwest shore of Resurrection Bay in Seward, Alaska. Since 2001, the facility has been covered by an EPA “multi-sector” General Permit for Stormwater Discharges, and the defendants argued that any spills of coal from the facility into Resurrection Bat was covered by this permit and the “permit shield” provisions of Subdivision (k) of Section 1342 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. § 1342(k)). The lower court agreed with the defendants and granted summary judgment.

However, according to the Court of Appeals, a careful review of the provisions of the permit disclosed that these particular “non-stormwater” discharges were not, in fact, covered by the permit, and the decision of the lower court was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

This is the second “permit shield” case to be decided by the Court of Appeals in the past few months. In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit also rejected the use of the permit shield defense in the case of Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards, et al., v. A & G Coal Corporation, 2014 WL 3377687 (4th Cir. July 14, 2014), which involved the interpretation of an individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and the disclosures the applicant made to the permitting authority. It is evident that the courts are subjecting this defense to an exacting review.

Additional Source: Aurora Energy Decision Deems Discharges Prohibited, Leaves Open Question of Permit Shield Applicability; “Permit Shield” Defense Unavailable When Presence of Pollutant Was Not Disclosed In Permit Application Process

Rule of Thumb: If the business entity’s name change results in the California Secretary of State issuing a new registration number, a new California contractor’s license will be required ~ a contractor’s license is not transferrable. If a new license is required, you must file an application for original contractor’s license and fulfill any other requirements, including bonding and insurance requirements. The license application approval process can take time, plan ahead and, if prudent, request that the license application approval process be expedited. (It is a misdemeanor for a person to engage in the business or act in the capacity of a contractor in California without having the requisite contractor’s license.)

Any change to the licensee’s name or address must be reported to the CSLB within 90 days of the change by submitting an Application to Change Business Name or Address signed by an owner, partner, or officer of the corporation. Also keep in mind that any new business name cannot indicate (1) a change in the type of entity, e.g., LLC, LLP, Inc., etc., (2) that the company qualifies for a classification other than the one for which it is currently licensed, or (3) a personnel change. In addition, any corporate name change must first be registered with the Secretary of State’s Office; adding a “DBA” to the existing corporate name does not require any changes with the Secretary of State’s Office, except that the DBA cannot indicate a second corporation.

Additional Source: CSLB, Change Your Business Name or Address; CSLB Forms and Applications