Below is a snapshot of the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act 
(S. 612) passed late last week by the Congress. The President has indicated that he will sign the bill.
On December 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit decided the case of United States v. Board of County Commissioners of Otero County, New Mexico. The Tenth Circuit held that a New Mexico statute and resolution adopted by the Otero County Board of County Commissioners (Board) which purported to authorize the Board to take unilateral steps to mitigate the fire dangers posed by very dry conditions in the Lincoln National Forest were preempted by federal law. The Tenth Circuit, affirming the lower court, ruled that the Property Clause of the U.S. Constitution authorized the federal government to promulgate rules governing the use of the national forests and, insofar as local laws intended to abate these dangers conflicted with federal law, they were preempted.
The Florida Supreme Court recently issued a widely reported decision, Sebo v. American Home Assurance Co., which applied the concurrent cause doctrine in ruling that an all-risk homeowner’s insurance policy provides coverage when damage is the result of multiple events—so long as at least one of them is a covered peril. Plaintiff John Sebo purchased a home, which he insured under an all-risk homeowner’s policy written by American Home. As an “all-risk” policy, it provided coverage for damage to property caused by all perils, except those it explicitly excluded. Design defects and faulty construction were among the excluded perils. Within less than two months of buying the house, Mr. Sebo discovered major leaks during rainstorms, which were later found to be the result of design defects and faulty construction. Hurricane Wilma then caused even more damage. When Mr. Sebo sought coverage for damage from the water intrusion, American Home denied most of the claim on the grounds that it was caused by design defects and faulty construction—which were excluded perils. But the Florida Supreme Court found coverage.
On December 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in the case of Japanese Village, LLC v. Federal Transit Administration, et al., affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgement to the government defendants following a painstaking review of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) arguments lodged by Japanese Village, LLC and Today’s IV, Inc. dba Westin Bonaventure Hotel (Bonaventure) against the construction of the Regional Connector Transit Corridor Project, a 1.9-mile light rail extension line in downtown Los Angeles.
Today, our colleagues Kevin Ashe and Rebecca Lee published an alert on the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent listing of certain chemicals as subject to review for risks to human health and to the environment. EPA’s actions follow recent amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act requiring it to timely complete risk assessments for chemicals manufacture, distributed and imported to the U.S. They encourage companies with U.S. operations to consider the implications if they use chemicals that have been list or may be listed by the EPA. The alert is titled Toxic Substances Control Act Overhaul.
On November 23, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a unanimous ruling that the Surface Transportation Board has exclusive jurisdiction over “railroad repair work done at the direction of a federally regulated rail carrier but performed by a contractor rather than the carrier itself.” The case is Oregon Scenic Coast Railway, LLC v. State of Oregon Department of State Lands. Continue Reading ›
On November 29, the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB) issued an Industry Bulletin via email announcing that Cindi A. Christenson, the CSLB’s current Registrar of Contractors, will be retiring effective May 1, 2017. Christenson, the CSLB’s first female Registrar, was appointed to this position on January 1, 2015. Prior to her appointment as the Registrar, Christenson served for six years as CLSB’s Chief Deputy Registrar. A nationwide executive search for Christenson’s replacement is in process.
Today, our colleagues Julia Judish, Rebecca Carr Rizzo and John Scalia published their alert discussing a U.S. District Court’s very recent issuance of a nationwide preliminary injunction preventing the Department of Labor from implementing and enforcing its new overtime regulations. Those regulations, which would have more than doubled the minimum salary level required to exempt executive, administrative, professional, and salaried computer professional employees from eligibility for overtime, would otherwise have been effective December 1. They note that although a preliminary injunction is a temporary court order, in light of the timing of the preliminary injunction and the upcoming change of Presidential administration, the ruling may foreclose the overtime regulations from ever taking effect. The alert is titled Preliminary Injunction Creates Uncertain Fate For Overtime Regulations.
Additional Source: U.S. Department of Labor More Than Doubles Minimum Salary Levels for FLSA Overtime Exemptions; Court Issues Nationwide Preliminary Injunction of DOL’s Overtime Rules Effective Dec 1
In Federal Court Rules New Overtime Requirements Won’t Go Into Effect on December 1, our colleague Scott Flick discusses the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas’ ruling in a civil action challenging the Department of Labor’s (DOL) new overtime regulations. The civil action that was brought by the State of Nevada and 20 other states and recently consolidated with a related civil action brought by the Plano Chamber of Congress and over 50 other business organizations. Today, in response to a motion filed by states, the District Court granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, preventing the new salary threshold (and scheduled increases to it in future years) from going into effect until the District Court has had an opportunity to rule on the legality of the rule change. Effective December 1, the Final Rule would have, among other things, increased the minimum salary level for exempt employees from $455 per week ($23,660 annually) to $921 per week ($47,892 annually). In its ruling, the District Court made it clear that the DOL will have a hard time defending the rule change.
On November 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued three unanimous decisions affirming the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii’s rulings that three local county ordinances—enacted by the counties of Maui, Kauai and Hawaii—are preempted by the laws of the State of Hawaii or the federal Plant Protection Act (PPA), 7 U.S.C. § 7756(b). The ordinances purported to regulate pesticides and genetically engineered plants or even banning the cultivation and testing of genetically-engineered plants. The published opinions are Atay, et al., v. County of Maui, et al., and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., et al., v. County of Kauai. The unpublished opinion is Hawai’i Papaya Industry Assoc., et al., v. County of Hawaii.
The Maui County ordinance was the result of a citizens’ initiative, and the Kauai ordinance was enacted in the regular course of county business. In the Syngenta Seeds case, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the “field preemption” test devised by the Hawaii Supreme Court required the rejection of Kauai County ordinance. In the Atay case, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the provisions of the Maui County ordinance were preempted by both the PPA and impliedly by the laws of the State of Hawaii.
In the third case, the Ninth Circuit held that a recently-enacted ordinance of the County of Hawaii which bans the “open air testing of genetically engineered organisms of any kind” and “open air cultivation, propagation, development or testing of genetically engineered crops of plants” was preempted by federal and state law.
