(California Court of Appeal) - Held that a man who was shot in the parking lot after a professional football game could not proceed with his personal injury claims. His lawsuit against the football team was barred by the statute of limitations. Affirmed a dismissal.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a government contractor's claim for an equitable adjustment arising out of its fixed price indefinite delivery contract with the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)’s Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS), the Court of Federal Claims' denial of the claim is reversed where: 1) the Claims Court's findings that DRMS did not inadequately or negligently prepare its estimates and that Agility did not rely on those estimates are clearly erroneous; and 2) Plaintiff’s receipt of scrap sales and the parties' agreement to clause H.19 do not preclude plaintiff from recovering under this claim.

(United States Federal Circuit) - In an appeal from a decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals finding that the government did not breach the terms of a supply contract with plaintiff, the Board's decision is: 1) affirmed in part where the government did not breach the express terms of the contract or a later agreement to consider exceptions; but 2) vacated in part where the Board erred when it concluded that it 'need not decide' plaintiff's implied duty and constructive change claims.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - In third-party claims brought by the City of Los Angeles for breach of contract and contribution against contractors that allegedly breached their contractual duty to perform services in compliance with federal disability regulations in the design and construction of a bus facility, the district court's dismissal of the City's claims is reversed where: 1) Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act did not preempt the City's state-law claims because the ADA expressly disavows preemptive federal occupation of the disability-rights field; and 2) conflict preemption also did not preclude the City's claims.

(United States Fourth Circuit) - In a construction company's suit against a city for breach of contract, alleging that the city unlawfully assessed liquidated damages against the company for failure to complete a construction project on time, the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is affirmed where plaintiff is not excused from the normal requirement of administrative exhaustion under Maryland law.

(California Court of Appeal) - In a case involving an airport lease and operating agreement, brought by a company alleging that the city had a flawed bidding process, the trial court's denial of plaintiff's leave to amend its petition and complaint is affirmed.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing an order sustaining a city's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissing a complaint to the extent that the order denied the plaintiff leave to amend in an action relating to an agreement between an energy company and a city whose terms may have violated the California Constitution because a quasi-contractual restitution claim would be permitted even if the Payments Clause at issue is unconstitutional.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the trial court's denial of a writ petition and declaratory and injunctive relief in the case of a city project because the trial court's dismantling of agreements entered into by an earlier administration and agency unconstitutionally impaired a private developer's contractual rights.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversing the portion of a judgment commanding the Department of Finance of California to consider whether certain expenditures fall under the 'goods and services' provision because the failure of the City of Grass Valley to raise the issue in an administrative forum precluded it from trial court relief, but directing the trial court to issue a new writ commanding the Department to consider the City's claim regarding a highway project agreement, and otherwise affirming the denial of the City's petition for writ of mandate in a case relating to the mass dissolution of redevelopment agencies in the state.

(United States Federal Circuit) - Affirming the decision by the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals dismissing for lack of jurisdiction because the Contract Disputes Act did not provide jurisdiction in a case involving a contract with the Army to establish and operate supply chain during Iraq's reconstruction and that the Board lacked jurisdiction under its charter and partially dismissing because the decision was not made pursuant under the CDA, so the court lacked jurisdiction to review.

(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.

(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.

(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) - 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 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.

(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.

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

(California Court of Appeal) - Upheld San Francisco's decision to order a prime contractor on a public works project to replace a subcontractor. Reversed the trial court.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that an environmental group could not proceed with its challenge to a county's approval of a private company's plan to build a rock quarry and related facilities. Affirmed the denial of a writ petition.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that citizen groups could not proceed with their challenge to the environmental review conducted for a proposed mixed-use development project in downtown San Francisco. Affirmed the denial of writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Held that the City of Los Angeles could deny landowners' request for approval to undertake a large amount of grading on their parcel of land. Affirmed the denial of the landowners' request for writ relief.

(California Court of Appeal) - Struck down a portion of a city ordinance authorizing development impact fees for parks and recreation. Affirmed the lower court in relevant part, in this case involving California's Mitigation Fee Act.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Held that a construction company's surety (an insurance company) may not augment its contractual indemnification rights with the ancient doctrine of quia timet -- equitable protection from probable future harm. The construction company allegedly had gone belly up on a government project. Affirmed summary judgment against the surety's claim.

(United States Second Circuit) - Revived Asian‐owned companies' claims that city employees discriminatorily enforced municipal building codes on the basis of race and personal animus. Reversed a dismissal in relevant part.

(United States Ninth Circuit) - Held that President Trump's executive order withholding all federal grants from so-called sanctuary cities was unconstitutional. California municipalities brought this suit arguing that the executive order violated the principle of Separation of Powers as well as the Spending Clause, which vests exclusive power to Congress to impose conditions on federal grants. In a 2-1 decision, the Ninth Circuit agreed and affirmed summary judgment in favor of the municipalities. However, the panel vacated the nationwide injunction based on an absence of specific findings justifying the broad scope, and remanded for further findings.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration was justified in imposing an assessment and penalty on a recipient of disability benefits who failed to report work activity. The benefit recipient disputed that his failure to report earnings was material. While rejecting his legal challenge, the Second Circuit held that the agency lacked substantial evidence to support the amounts of the assessment and penalty, and therefore vacated and remanded.

(United States Second Circuit) - Held that the Social Security Administration erred in denying an individual's disability insurance benefits application. Reversed the district court and remanded for further proceedings.

(United States Seventh Circuit) - Affirmed. The Illinois Child Care Assistance Program could not collect overpayments made to debtors under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program who filed for bankruptcy.

(California Court of Appeal) - Reversed. Defendant, housing authority, terminated Plaintiff’s federally funded subsidized housing program. The trial court ordered Defendant to vacate its order. The appeals court found that there was nothing in the Defendant’s hearing of termination that indicated an abuse of discretion and reversed the trial court’s ruling.