(United States Federal Circuit) - Appeal to determine meaning of special factor in 28 USC 2412(d)(2)(A), Equal Access to Justice Act. When special factor is found the statutory attorney fee rate is increased. The Claims Court found special factor existed in a bid protest claim where the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was stated to have acted arbitrarily and awarded plaintiff attorney fees increased by special factor. The Federal Court of Appeals held that the Claims Court erred and there was no special factor. Egregious misconduct by the HHS does not constitute a special factor.

(United States Third Circuit) - Affirmed, in large part, an attorney fee award in a False Claims Act action that had been resolved by settlement. After the defendant agreed to settle the case, the plaintiff (qui tam relator) was entitled to recover his reasonable attorney fees as a prevailing party. He appealed arguing that the district court's fee award was too low. The Third Circuit rejected his arguments and affirmed the award except in one narrow respect: on remand the trial court must decide how much to award him in fees for the time spent litigating his fee petition.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirmed that the U.S. government had breached certain World War II-era contracts with several oil companies. In this long-running litigation, the oil companies claimed that the federal government, which had sued them for hazardous waste cleanup, was partly liable for the cleanup costs due to language in their 1940s government contracts to produce aviation fuel for the war effort. The Court of Federal Claims agreed with the oil companies and awarded them nearly $100 million in contract damages, collectively. The federal government appealed, but the Federal Circuit affirmed.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a False Claims Act lawsuit had to be dismissed because it was not the first-filed case accusing the defendant pharmaceutical company of certain improper Medicare and Medicaid billing practices. The plaintiff (relator) argued that his action should be allowed to proceed because the earlier action was no longer pending. Disagreeing, the Second Circuit held that a violation of the first‐to‐file bar, which prohibits a person from bringing a related qui tam action when one is already pending, cannot be remedied by amending or supplementing the complaint. The panel reversed and remanded.

(United States Third Circuit) - Reinstated a False Claims Act lawsuit alleging fraud in connection with the sale of pharmaceutical drugs to nursing homes. The defendant company, which owns and operates institutional pharmacies, argued for dismissal of the qui tam action on the ground that the allegation was already known to the public, and the district court agreed. Reversing and remanding, the Third Circuit held that the relator's allegation had not previously been publicly disclosed.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Affirmed the voluntary dismissal of a qui tam action that a group of physicians brought against a company operating allergy treatment clinics. Over the company's objection, the physicians sought to voluntarily dismiss their lawsuit with prejudice as to themselves only, so that their decision to quit would not hamstring the government's efforts against the company elsewhere. The district court granted the dismissal motion, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Pomona violated the terms of a 1993 ballot initiative prohibiting the construction of additional billboards within city limits. A citizen group challenged the city council's decision to extend a pre-existing agreement with an outdoor advertising company when the arrangement expired in 2014. Affirmed the granting of a writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an attorney fee award to a government contractor that defeated a municipality's claim brought under the California False Claims Act, even though the contractor did not prevail in the action as a whole.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the prevailing wage law applied here because the contractors (belt sorters at county recycling facilities) were engaged in public work. On a separate issue, addressed the statutory remedy for improperly shortening their meal periods by three to five minutes.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a manufacturer of military aircraft that was sued in state court in an asbestos-related personal injury action was entitled to remove the case under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. section 1442(a), based on the assertion of a government contractor defense. Reversed the district court.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the U.S. government could not constitutionally deny funding to fight HIV/AIDS abroad based on a foreign organization's failure to adopt a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. Affirmed the issuance of a permanent injunction on First Amendment grounds. The government had been interpreting a related 2013 Supreme Court decision narrowly.

(California Court of Appeal) - Revived a labor union's claim that a municipality violated a law concerning contract bidding when it hired a new private company to operate its municipal bus system. Reversed a dismissal and remanded, in this case involving a statutory bidding preference tied to labor rights.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a former qui tam relator was not entitled to share in the government's recovery against a company under the False Claims Act in light of his prior voluntary dismissal of his qui tam action.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Revived a lawsuit brought by several employees of a hospice care provider alleging that their employer had billed Medicare improperly. Reversed the dismissal of their claims under the False Claims Act.

(United States Supreme Court) - Clarified the statute of limitations in qui tam lawsuits. Justice Thomas delivered the Court's unanimous opinion in this case involving the False Claims Act.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - District court's granting of summary judgment and bench verdict for Defendant affirmed. Sherman Act claim fails where the only current feasible way to comply with Chicagoland area city commercial fire safety ordinances was to use an exclusive provider. Under Fisher v. City of Berkeley, government restraints on trade imposed unilaterally do not form the basis of a Section 1 or Section 2 claim.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an arbitrator's decision in favor of a builder in a dispute with a community association over alleged defects in construction. The association, consisting of residential condominium units, argued that its arbitration claim should not have been dismissed on summary judgment even though the association had filed the claim without first receiving the consent of its members, in violation of its declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions. Agreeing with the builder, the California Fourth Appellate District affirmed denial of the association's motion to vacate the arbitrator's decision.

(United States First Circuit) - Affirmed the dismissal of an Indian tribe's complaint against federal and Rhode Island agencies concerning a highway bridge reconstruction. The tribe argued, at base, that the state of Rhode Island broke a promise to give the tribe three parcels of land as mitigation for the expected negative impact on historic tribal land of an I-95 bridge replacement project. Agreeing with the district court, the First Circuit held that the tribe's claims were barred by federal sovereign immunity and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that a 2015 Nevada statute designed to protect construction general contractors from certain claims was not preempted by ERISA. A group of labor unions brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment that Nevada's SB 223, limiting general contractors' vicarious liability for their subcontractors' unpaid labor debts, was preempted by ERISA. Finding no preemption, the Ninth Circuit vacated the entry of summary judgment for the unions.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that California did not violate the Equal Protection Clause when it adopted a 2015 amendment that conferred prevailing-wage protections on delivery drivers of ready-mix concrete. Reversed a summary judgment decision in this case involving a law that guarantees a special minimum wage to workers employed on public-works projects.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a construction contractor was entitled to recover attorney fees he incurred in seeking to enforce his right to arbitrate a claim that an Indian tribe failed to pay him for his work.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Los Angeles did not act unlawfully when it amended its General Plan to change the land use designation of a five-acre development site from light industrial to general commercial. Affirmed the denial of a neighborhood organization's petition for writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the California Coastal Commission did not act contrary to law in refusing to certify the San Diego Unified Port District's proposed master plan amendment authorizing a hotel development project, in a reversal of the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld the City of San Diego's decision to approve an environmental impact report addendum for an urban park project. Affirmed the denial of a citizen group's petition for writ of mandamus.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a general building contractor did not file a timely court challenge to a citation issued by government inspectors who found a safety violation at a job site. Affirmed dismissal of the contractor's petition for a writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an electrical contractor could not proceed with its lawsuit challenging a state licensing board's disciplinary decision, because the contractor was required to exhaust its administrative remedies before filing suit. Granted the licensing board's petition for a writ of mandate.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed the dismissal of a property owner's negligence, breach of contract, and other claims arising out of a building construction dispute.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed a $1.6 million jury verdict in an individual's asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit. Held that there was no admissible evidence that the defendant company supplied asbestos-cement pipes to a worksite in the 1970s; the only evidence was hearsay.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Secretary of Labor has authority under the OSHA statute to issue a citation to a general contractor at a multi-employer construction worksite who controls a hazardous condition at that worksite, even if the condition affects another employer's employees. Criticized a circuit precedent, Melerine v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 659 F.2d 706 (5th Cir. 1981), which had held that the Act protects only an employer's employees.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that insurers could not sue a construction subcontractor to recover attorney fees and costs incurred in defending developers in a prior construction defect action, under the facts here. Affirmed a judgment on the pleadings.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a general contractor could not proceed with its breach-of-contract and other claims against an insurance company that had issued surety bonds in connection with several federal construction projects. Affirmed dismissal of the general contractor's claims.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld a decision of the Contractors' State License Board finding that a large contracting company violated California law by failing to obtain a building permit before replacing a boiler. Affirmed the denial of the company's writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed that a school district failed to take the proper steps to enact a fee on new residential development within the district to fund the construction of school facilities. Held that the fee study did not contain the data required to properly calculate a development fee.

(Supreme Court of California) - Held that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) issued in connection with a planned retirement community must be revised. The Sierra Club and others argued that the EIR lacked sufficient discussion of the project's air quality impacts. The California Supreme Court's opinion addressed some broad issues regarding judicial review of the adequacy of EIRs.

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld an administrative decision by the Santa Monica Community College District to allow a contractor to replace one subcontractor with another subcontractor on a construction project. Affirmed the denial of the plaintiff subcontractor's writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Affirmed an order voiding a default judgment on procedural grounds. Held that the complaint did not provide adequate notice to sustain a default because it failed to specify the amount of damages that the plaintiff was seeking, and instead merely prayed for "damages according to proof," in this lawsuit related to the construction of a hotel.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that mediation costs fall within the category of costs that may be awarded in the trial court’s discretion. Affirmed an award to the prevailing party in this construction dispute.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a citizen group could not proceed with its claims that the City of Los Angeles engaged in a pattern and practice of illegally exempting certain development projects in Venice from permitting requirements contained in the California Coastal Act and the Venice Land Use Plan. Affirmed summary judgment for city.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups lacked a valid basis to challenge a city council's decision to approve the construction of an eight-unit multifamily residential building. Affirmed denial of a writ petition, in a case involving compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

(United States Fifth Circuit) - Held that a subcontractor could not proceed with its lawsuit against a general contractor seeking payment for work on a project to build public schools. The subcontractor did not properly comply with the notice requirements of the Louisiana Public Works Act.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that an arbitrator made an "irrational" decision in a contract dispute between two government contractors. Affirmed the district court's vacatur of the arbitration award, in this case involving contracts to construct buildings and facilities in Afghanistan.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a construction business that ceased operations and cut off its pension contributions was subject to withdrawal liability under ERISA's Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments. Affirmed summary judgment in favor of a labor union pension fund.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a neighborhood organization could not stop the construction of three new single-family homes in a certain location, despite alleged violations of zoning and environmental laws. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(Supreme Court of California) - In an opinion that clarifies the scope of the anti-SLAPP statute, the California Supreme Court held that only certain causes of action here arose from protected speech. In the underlying dispute, a developer had sued the City of Carson and another developer in connection with negotiations about the possibility of building a National Football League stadium in the city.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security had the statutory authority to expedite construction of physical border barriers near San Diego and Calexico, California. The State of California and multiple environmental groups challenged the agency's 2017 authorization of these projects, which involved wall prototypes and tens of miles of replacement fencing. However, the Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the federal government.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that a mayor had legislative immunity from claims that he scuttled a low‐income housing project because the prospective developer refused to hire his political ally as a contractor on the project. Affirmed judgment in favor of the mayor and the other defendants.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a dispute between a homeowner and building contractors, reversed the trial court's directed verdicts and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a donut shop that was condemned through eminent domain because it was in the path of a proposed rail line was entitled to compensation for its lost goodwill. Reversed and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a subcontractor hired to install utility boxes in a residential subdivision had a contractual duty to defend the developer from a personal injury claim alleging that the plaintiff fell into a defectively constructed utility box. Reversed and remanded.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a neighboring business was time-barred from challenging a city's approval of an affordable housing project. Affirmed the sustaining of a demurrer.