§Why CasetextPricing

UNITED RIGGERS & ERECTORS v. COAST IRON & STEEL

Amicus Curiae Brief of Associated General Contractors of California

14 Cited authorities

  1. Westamerica Bank v. City of Berkeley

    201 Cal.App.4th 598 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Westamerica, the City of Berkeley had entered into a construction agreement with Arntz Builders (Arntz) to build a public library, and the agreement provided for a retention escrow account to ensure completion of the work.

  2. Yassin v. Solis

    184 Cal.App.4th 524 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 24 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a final payment on a project was not a retention payment because it did not represent a payment of funds previously withheld

  3. East West Bank v. Rio School District

    235 Cal.App.4th 742 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 13 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Noting that applicability of unclean hands can turn on "question of fact"

  4. Pittsburg Unified School District v. S.J. Amoroso Construction Co., Inc.

    232 Cal.App.4th 808 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)   Cited 10 times   2 Legal Analyses

    A138825 12-22-2014 PITTSBURG UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. S.J. AMOROSO CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Defendant and Appellant. Leonidou & Rosin, Janette G. Rosin, A. Robert Rosin, David L. Ashby, Mountain View, for Defendant and Appellant. Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost, LLP, Roy A. Combs, David Mishook, Oakland, Mark S. Williams, Los Angeles, Cynthia M. Smith, Sacramento, for Plaintiff and Respondent. STEWART, J. Leonidou & Rosin, Janette G. Rosin, A. Robert Rosin, David L. Ashby, Mountain

  5. McAndrew v. Hazegh

    128 Cal.App.4th 1563 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 16 times
    In McAndrew v. Hazegh, supra, 128 Cal.App.4th at page 1566, the issue was whether the action involved a "`retention'" payment to bring it within section 3260.

  6. Scott Co. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance

    107 Cal.App.4th 197 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 18 times

    H022467 Filed March 21, 2003 Certified for Publication Appeal from the Santa Clara County Superior Court, No. 707949, Hon. Conrad L. Rushing, Judge. McInerney Dillon and Timothy F. Winchester and Jewell J. Hargleroad, Attorneys for Apellant. Morgenstein Jubelirer and Eliot S. Jubelirer, Rocky N. Unruh, Bruce A. Wagman, Attorneys for Respondent, American Insurance Company. The Banchero Law Firm and E. Jeffery Banchero and Robert M. Lichtman, Attorneys for Respondents, United States Fidelity Guaranty

  7. United Riggers & Erectors, Inc. v. Coast Iron & Steel Co.

    243 Cal.App.4th 151 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 1 times   3 Legal Analyses

    B258860 11-23-2015 UNITED RIGGERS & ERECTORS, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. COAST IRON & STEEL CO. et al., Defendants and Respondents. Law Office of Dirk Bruinsma and Dirk Bruinsma, San Clemente, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Westrup & Associates, R. Duane Westrup, Long Beach, and Ian Chuang for Defendants and Respondents. ROTHSCHILD, P.J. Law Office of Dirk Bruinsma and Dirk Bruinsma, San Clemente, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Westrup & Associates, R. Duane Westrup, Long Beach, and Ian Chuang

  8. Harsco Corp. v. Department of Public Works

    21 Cal.App.3d 272 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 6 times
    In Harsco Corporation v. Department of Public Works (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 272, 98 Cal.Rptr. 337 (Harsco), the court held that retention funds are not earned by the contractor until the project is completed within the project price and thus that a stop notice filed by an unpaid subcontractor did not reach the retention.

  9. Quinn v. United States

    99 U.S. 30 (1878)   Cited 5 times

    OCTOBER TERM, 1878. A contract between the United States and A., for his removal of the rock at the entrance of a certain harbor, provided that he should complete the work at a specified time, and that if he should delay or be unable to proceed with it in accordance with the contract, the officer in charge might terminate the contract, and employ others to complete the work, deducting expenses from any money due or owing to A., who was also to be responsible for any damages caused to others by his

  10. Section 8412 - Recording claim of lien after contractor completes direct contract

    Cal. Civ. Code § 8412   Cited 7 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Barring a contractor from enforcing a lien unless the contractor records the claim of lien within 90 days after completion of the work of improvement

  11. Section 8414 - Time for recording lien by claimant other than direct contractor

    Cal. Civ. Code § 8414   Cited 6 times

    A claimant other than a direct contractor may not enforce a lien unless the claimant records a claim of lien within the following times: (a) After the claimant ceases to provide work. (b) Before the earlier of the following times: (1) Ninety days after completion of the work of improvement. (2) Thirty days after the owner records a notice of completion or cessation. Ca. Civ. Code § 8414 Added by Stats 2010 ch 697 (SB 189),s 20, eff. 1/1/2011, op. 7/1/2012.

  12. Section 8814 - Withholding retention from subcontractors

    Cal. Civ. Code § 8814   Cited 6 times   6 Legal Analyses

    (a) If a direct contractor has withheld a retention from one or more subcontractors, the direct contractor shall, within 10 days after receiving all or part of a retention payment, pay to each subcontractor from whom retention has been withheld that subcontractor's share of the payment. (b) If a retention received by the direct contractor is specifically designated for a particular subcontractor, the direct contractor shall pay the retention payment to the designated subcontractor, if consistent

  13. Section 8180 - When completion occurs

    Cal. Civ. Code § 8180   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) For the purpose of this title, completion of a work of improvement occurs upon the occurrence of any of the following events: (1) Actual completion of the work of improvement. (2) Occupation or use by the owner accompanied by cessation of labor. (3) Cessation of labor for a continuous period of 60 days. (4) Recordation of a notice of cessation after cessation of labor for a continuous period of 30 days. (b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), if a work of improvement is subject to acceptance by

  14. Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice

    Cal. R. 8.520   Cited 3,160 times

    (a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or