RUSO NORTH DAKOTA CONSTRUCTION EXPERT WITNESS
DIRECTORY AND CAPABILITIES

Contract Disputes Act and Jurisdictional Requirements

March 17, 2026 — David Adelstein - Florida Construction Legal Updates
When dealing with a claim on a federal construction project, there are a couple of key background jurisdictional points. These points were briefly highlighted in the recent appeal, Mega Star Logistics Service Co. v. Department of State, CBCA 8232, 2026 WL 253738 (CBCA 2026). Here are the two points. FIRST, when it comes to jurisdiction, for a board of contract appeals “to exercise jurisdiction over a claim, the CDA [Contract Disputes Act] requires the contractor to submit a written claim to the contracting officer for a COFD [contracting officer final decision], with a subsequent appeal of the COFD or deemed denial if the CO [contracting officer] does not issue a COFD.” Thus, you need to submit a formal claim under the Contract Disputes Act to the contracting officer to get a final decision from the contracting officer (or the contracting officer waiving the final decision by not timely furnishing one). Mega Star Logistics, supra. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of David Adelstein, Kirwin Norris
Mr. Adelstein may be contacted at dma@kirwinnorris.com

---

Brandy Price, Dean Pillarella Named to Lawdragon's "Next Generation" List

June 22, 2026 — Lewis Brisbois
Charlotte/North Charleston Partner Brandy G. Price and New York Partner Dean Pillarella have been selected to "The 2026 Lawdragon 500 X – The Next Generation," which recognizes emerging leaders in law. Lawdragon's annual Next Generation listing highlights up-and-coming attorneys with fewer than 15 years in practice. The legal media company selected these honorees through a combination of peer nominations, extensive journalistic research by Lawdragon editors, and independent vetting. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Lewis Brisbois

---

Introducing the Updated 2026 Pillsbury Guide to Data Centers

June 08, 2026 — Gravel2Gavel Team - Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog
Since the initial publication of the Pillsbury Guide to Data Centers in 2025, the market has continued to evolve—most notably with respect to power availability, energy strategy, tax and incentives planning, and investment activity across the sector. While many of the legal, commercial and regulatory frameworks addressed in the original Guide remain durable and relevant, recent developments warranted targeted updates and additions. The 2026 edition expands and updates our energy-focused content to reflect the increasingly central role of power procurement, interconnection and long-term energy strategy in data center development. We have incorporated new materials addressing power purchase and interconnection agreements, solar and other renewable energy solutions, advanced reactor designs, and nuclear-powered data centers projects, including an updated project tracker. We have also added new analysis covering state and local tax considerations and incentive structures relevant to data center development and operations, as well as current M&A and private equity trends shaping investment in the sector. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Gravel2Gavel Team

---

$27B Meta Data Center Pushes Louisiana Toward Massive Power Expansion

April 27, 2026 — Vince Kong - Engineering News-Record
Meta Platforms has reached an agreement with Entergy Louisiana to fund new energy infrastructure to support its planned $27-billion data center in Richland Parish, a project the company says could ultimately scale to 5 GW, becoming its largest facility to date. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has described the site as large enough to cover a significant portion of Manhattan. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Vince Kong, Engineering News-Record
Mr. Kong may be contacted at kongv@enr.com

---

Breaking Ground On New California Public Works Prevailing Wage Requirements

April 27, 2026 — Heather Frisch, Christopher Bouquet & Ashley Stein - The Construction Seyt
Seyfarth Synopsis: As of January 1, 2026, AB 889 bulldozed California’s Prevailing Wage law, which impacts public works employers—including public agencies, the contractors that work for them, and private owners and developers whose projects may be subject to public works requirements. The amended law reframes the calculation of fringe benefits for individuals who work on public works project and mandates annualization of such benefits, demolishes the practice of frontloading these benefits, and requires employers to maintain inspection-ready records of compliance. This year, AB 889 significantly revised California’s prevailing wage law, codified at Labor Code section 1773.1, to clarify the state’s prevailing wage regulations and streamline enforcement. Accordingly, as of January 1, 2026, California public works employers are required to annualize employees’ fringe benefits and maintain specific documentation demonstrating statutory compliance. These new obligations impact public agencies and their contractors, as well as private owners and developers whose projects may be subject to public works requirements. Continue reading for the blueprint of how to comply with the state’s amended prevailing wage law. Reprinted courtesy of Heather Frisch, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Christopher Bouquet, Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Ashley Stein, Seyfarth Shaw LLP Ms. Frisch may be contacted at hfrisch@seyfarth.com Mr. Bouquet may be contacted at cbouquet@seyfarth.com Ms. Stein may be contacted at astein@seyfarth.com Read the full story...

---

Arizona Court Enters $323 Million Judgment Against ZOM Living Following Unanimous Jury Verdict

May 26, 2026 — Gray Development Group
PHOENIX, May 19, 2026 /PRNewswire/ -- A Maricopa County court has entered a $323 million compensatory damages judgment in favor of Gray Development Group against ZOM Holding Inc., doing business as ZOM Living, following a 12-day trial, a unanimous jury verdict and post-trial proceedings related to a proposed business transaction. The jury found ZOM liable on claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing stemming from a proposed joint venture tied to a planned pipeline of luxury multifamily and commercial projects in Phoenix and Scottsdale. The lawsuit centered on a 13-project, $1.4 billion development pipeline originated and planned by Gray Development Group over more than a decade. In 2019, Gray invited Florida-based ZOM to participate in a joint venture involving the completion of five projects, which would have marked ZOM's entry into the Arizona market. According to court findings presented at trial, the companies entered into a mutual confidentiality and non-circumvention agreement before Gray shared extensive sensitive and proprietary information related to the projects, including planning, market analysis, costs, financial data, local business relationships and operational strategies developed by Gray over decades in Arizona. Evidence presented during trial showed that over a 10-month period while under contract, ZOM made hundreds of requests for confidential project and market information before circumventing Gray and pursuing the projects independently, ultimately displacing Gray from projects it spent years planning and developing. ZOM Living, headquartered in Orlando, develops multifamily and senior housing communities across the United States and operates regional offices in Boston, Dallas, Fort Lauderdale, Nashville, Phoenix, and Raleigh. ZOM is owned by Timeless Investments, the Amsterdam-based family office of Dutch businessman Hans van Veggel, which acquired the company in 1997. About Gray Development Group Gray Development Group was founded by architect Bruce Gray in 1991. The Phoenix-based company was the top-ranked multifamily developer in Arizona for more than a decade. The company designed and developed more than 15,000 apartment and condominium units throughout metropolitan Phoenix. Two Gray-designed developments — a Tempe midrise and a San Diego high-rise — received National Apartment Community of the Year awards.

---

Sixth Circuit Revives Builder’s Risk Coverage, Refusing to Let Insurer Escape on a Technicality

July 27, 2026 — Kevin V. Small & Adriana A. Perez - Hunton Insurance Recovery Blog
In 3371 Reading, LLC v. Liberty Mutual Group, the Sixth Circuit did something courts do not always do in coverage disputes: it refused to let an insurer avoid liability based on a technical policy condition that could never actually be satisfied. The decision is a straightforward reminder of two core principles. First, policies must be interpreted from the standpoint of a reasonably prudent insured. Second, hyper-technical conditions cannot be used to deny coverage where compliance is never possible. Reprinted courtesy of Kevin V. Small, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP and Adriana A. Perez, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP Mr. Small may be contacted at ksmall@hunton.com Ms. Perez may be contacted at pereza@hunton.com Read the full story...

---

Colorado Supreme Court Reverses Course on Public Project Liens: Key Takeaways From Wadsworth v. Regional Rail Partners

July 27, 2026 — Amanda E. McKinlay - Snell & Wilmer
On April 6, 2026, the Colorado Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ralph L. Wadsworth Construction Company, LLC v. Regional Rail Partners, 2026 CO 19, reversing the Colorado Court of Appeals and providing much-needed clarity regarding verified statements of claim (VSOCs) under the Colorado Public Works Act, C.R.S. §§ 38-26-101 et seq. The decision resolves two issues that have generated significant concern among construction industry professionals since the Court of Appeals issued its opinion on August 1, 2024. Under C.R.S. § 38-26-107(1), a subcontractor on a public works project may file a VSOC with the contracting public entity for amounts due and unpaid for “…furnished labor, materials, sustenance, or other supplies used or consumed by a contractor or his or her subcontractor in or about the performance of the work contracted to be done or that supplies laborers, rental machinery, tools, or equipment to the extent used in the prosecution of the work….” If a claimant files a VSOC for “an amount greater than the amount due” without a reasonable possibility that the amount is due and with knowledge that the claim is excessive, the claimant “shall forfeit all rights to the amount claimed” and becomes liable for the opposing party’s costs and attorneys’ fees. C.R.S. § 38-26-110. Read the full story...
Reprinted courtesy of Amanda E. McKinlay, Snell & Wilmer
Ms. McKinlay may be contacted at amckinlay@swlaw.com

---