Articles Posted in Government Contracts

by
Dillard was the executive director of ACAP, an agency created by Alameda County and several cities. Daniels was the grants manager. The two married. The Agency was awarded a $500,000 Department of Health and Human Services AFI grant to fund programs for low-income people, who deposit money in an individual bank account, matched with federal AFI grant funds and equal nonfederal funds, which can be withdrawn for higher education, starting a business, or buying a house. Dillard and Daniels were charged with: Count I, conspiracy to commit grand theft by false pretenses in a letter to HHS “falsely attesting” that ACAP had more than $426,000 in non-federal match funds. Count 2: Grand theft by false pretenses by unlawfully taking grant funds exceeding $200,000. Count 3: Making a false account of public money. Count 4: Using public money for a purpose not authorized by law to fund Agency payroll and other expenses. Count 5: Dillard was charged with instructing employees to work on her residence at below-market rates and obtaining reimbursement for improper business expenses. Count 6: Preparing false documentary evidence regarding the residency status of Agency clients and a seminar agenda. They were convicted on Counts 2, 3, and 6. The court of appeal affirmed the Count 6 convictions but found the other convictions preempted by federal law. View "People v. Dillard" on Justia Law

by
Dillard was the executive director of ACAP, an agency created by Alameda County and several cities. Daniels was the grants manager. The two married. The Agency was awarded a $500,000 Department of Health and Human Services AFI grant to fund programs for low-income people, who deposit money in an individual bank account, matched with federal AFI grant funds and equal nonfederal funds, which can be withdrawn for higher education, starting a business, or buying a house. Dillard and Daniels were charged with: Count I, conspiracy to commit grand theft by false pretenses in a letter to HHS “falsely attesting” that ACAP had more than $426,000 in non-federal match funds. Count 2: Grand theft by false pretenses by unlawfully taking grant funds exceeding $200,000. Count 3: Making a false account of public money. Count 4: Using public money for a purpose not authorized by law to fund Agency payroll and other expenses. Count 5: Dillard was charged with instructing employees to work on her residence at below-market rates and obtaining reimbursement for improper business expenses. Count 6: Preparing false documentary evidence regarding the residency status of Agency clients and a seminar agenda. They were convicted on Counts 2, 3, and 6. The court of appeal affirmed the Count 6 convictions but found the other convictions preempted by federal law. View "People v. Dillard" on Justia Law

by
At issue in this case was whether plaintiff West Coast Air Conditioning Company, Inc. (West Coast) was entitled to recover under a promissory estoppel theory its bid preparation costs in the stipulated amount of $250,000, after it successfully challenged the award of a public works contract by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to real party in interest Hensel Phelps Construction Co. (HP). The court found HP's bid to update the Ironwood State Prison Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning System illegal and nonresponsive as a matter of law. As a result, the court granted West Coast's request for a permanent injunction, preventing HP from performing any additional work on the subject project. HP had only performed about 8 percent of the contract when the injunction issued, and although West Coast ultimately proved it was the lowest responsible bidder when granting the injunction, the court refused to command CDCR to award West Coast the contract for the subject project, despite the court's finding in a previous order that West Coast should have been awarded the contract. The Court of Appeals concluded the trial court properly exercised its authority in awarding West Coast its bid preparation costs of $250,000. The Court rejected CDCR's argument that West Coast, as a matter of law, was not entitled to recover such costs because West Coast's bid allegedly was nonresponsive and because West Coast had obtained a permanent injunction without any additional relief. View "West Coast Air Conditioning Co. v. Cal. Dept. of Corr. & Rehab." on Justia Law

by
Area 51 used Alameda city property for events it planned for third-party companies. PM assisted the city with managing the license arrangements. Due to problems connected with Area 51 events, the city ceased doing business with it. Area 51 had committed to third-party entities based on PM’s previous confirmation of the city’s willingness to license space. Area 51 sued. Defendants (city, PM, and individuals) filed a demurrer and a motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16, the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute. The court denied that motion and granted the demurrer. The court of appeal reversed in part. While the thrust of the claims against the city is breach of contract, the individual defendants were not contracting parties; the sole basis for asserting liability against them is what they did on behalf of the city. That conduct is expressive in nature (emails confirming dates, and announcing termination of the leasing relationship), which qualify as “written or oral statement[s] . . . made in connection with an issue under consideration . . . by a[n] . . . executive . . . body,” under the anti-SLAPP law. Area 51 could not show a probability of prevailing on the merits. The case was remanded for consideration of an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. View "Area 51 Productions, Inc. v. City of Alameda" on Justia Law

by
In this redevelopment case, the city of Anaheim, acting in its capacity as successor to the former Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, sought approval from the California Department of Finance (the department) to obtain money from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (the fund or, the RPTTF) to pay back the city of Anaheim for payments the City of Anaheim made to a construction company to complete certain real property improvements that the former Anaheim Redevelopment Agency was obligated to provide on a particular redevelopment project (the packing district project). The city and the city-as-successor characterized the transaction between themselves as a loan, but the department ultimately denied the claim for money from the fund because the city did not disburse the loan proceeds to the city-as-successor, but instead paid the construction company directly, and because the city-as-successor did not obtain prior approval for the “loan” agreement with the city from the oversight board. Around the same time, the city-as-successor sought approval from the department to obtain money from the fund to make payments to the Anaheim Housing Authority (the authority) under a cooperation agreement between the agency and the authority, the purpose of which was to provide funding for the Avon/Dakota revitalization project, which was being carried out by a private developer -- The Related Companies of California, LLC (Related) -- pursuant to a contract with the authority. The department denied that claim because the 2011 law that dissolved the former redevelopment agencies rendered agreements between a former redevelopment agency and the city that created that agency (or, a closely affiliated entity like the authority) unenforceable. The city, the city-as-successor, and the authority sought mandamus, declaratory, and injunctive relief on both issues in the superior court, but the trial court denied the writ petition and dismissed the complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Court of Appeal reversed, finding: (1) with respect to the packing district project, the fact that the city contracted directly with the construction company to construct the improvements the agency was legally obligated to provide at that project, and the fact that the city paid the company directly for its work, did not mean the agreement between the city and the city-as-successor with respect to the transaction was not a loan, as the department and the trial court concluded, also, the fact that the city-as-successor did not obtain prior approval from the oversight board to enter into a loan agreement with the city did not give the department a valid reason to deny the city as successor’s request for money from the fund to pay off the loan; and (2) as for the money from the fund claimed for the Avon/Dakota revitalization project, enforcing the provision of the dissolution law that renders unenforceable an agreement between a former redevelopment agency and the city that created it (or an affiliated entity like the authority) would, in this case, unconstitutionally impair Related’s contractual rights under its agreement with the authority. View "City of Anaheim v. Cohen" on Justia Law

by
California-American, a water utility, and Marina and Monterey, public water agencies, entered into contracts to collaborate on a water desalination project, stating that the prevailing party of “any action or proceeding in any way arising from [their a]greement” would be entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs. After learning that a member of Monterey’s board of directors had a conflict of interest, having been paid for consulting work to advocate on behalf of Marina, California-American sued to have the contracts declared void under Government Code section 1090. Monterey agreed that the contracts were void. Marina filed cross-claims seeking a declaration that the contracts were “valid and enforceable.” Years of litigation culminated in a holding declaring the agreements void. Marina challenged post-judgment orders that California-American and Monterey were entitled to costs as prevailing parties under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1032 and 1717 and granting them specific attorney fees awards. The court of appeal affirmed, rejecting Marina’s argument that they were not entitled to awards because the underlying contracts were declared void. The illegality exception to the rule of mutuality of remedies applies when the contract's subject matter is illegal but does not apply when the litigation involves the “invalidity” or “unenforceability” of an otherwise legal contract. View "California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water District" on Justia Law

by
In a case arising out of the “Great Dissolution” of redevelopment agencies (RDAs) in California the City of Grass Valley (City) appealed a judgment denying in part its petition for writ of mandate. The City, which was also the successor agency for its former RDA, sought to compel the Department of Finance (Department) to recognize the enforceability of certain agreements involving that RDA. The Department cross-appealed a part of the judgment commanding it to consider whether certain expenditures fell under a “goods and services” provision, claiming the City’s failure to raise this issue in an administrative forum precludes the relief granted by the trial court. The Court of Appeal agreed with the Department on that point and reversed with directions to recall the writ granting the City partial relief. However, based on the retrospective application of postjudgment legislation, the Court directed the trial court to issue a new writ commanding the Department to consider the City’s claim regarding a highway project agreement. The Court otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "City of Grass Valley v. Cohen" on Justia Law

by
The city of Anaheim, as successor to the former Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, sought approval from the California Department of Finance to obtain money from the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (the fund) for two reasons: (1) to pay the city back for payments it made to a construction company to complete certain property improvements that the former Anaheim Redevelopment Agency was obligated to provide on a particular redevelopment project (the packing district project); and (2) fund to make payments to the Anaheim Housing Authority (the authority) under a cooperation agreement between the agency and the authority, the purpose of which was to provide funding for the Avon/Dakota revitalization project, which was being carried out by a private developer -- The Related Companies of California, LLC (Related) -- pursuant to a contract with the authority. The department ultimately denied the claim for money from the fund for the property improvements because the city did not disburse the loan proceeds to the city as successor, but instead paid the construction company directly, and because the city as successor did not obtain prior approval for the “loan” agreement with the city from the oversight board. The department denied the second claim because the 2011 law that dissolved the former redevelopment agencies rendered agreements between a former redevelopment agency and the city that created that agency unenforceable. The city, the city as successor, and the authority sought mandamus, declaratory, and injunctive relief on both issues in the superior court, but the trial court denied the writ petition and dismissed the complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded the trial court erred. With respect to the packing district project, the fact that the city contracted directly with the construction company to construct the improvements the agency was legally obligated to provide at that project, and the fact that the city paid the company directly for its work, did not mean the agreement between the city and the city as successor with respect to the transaction was not a loan, as the department and the trial court concluded. As for the money from the fund claimed for the Avon/Dakota revitalization project, the Court concluded that enforcing the provision of the dissolution law that renders unenforceable an agreement between a former redevelopment agency and the city that created it (or an affiliated entity like the authority) would, in this case, unconstitutionally impair Related’s contractual rights under its agreement with the authority. Accordingly, that provision cannot be enforced here to deny the city as successor the right to obtain money from the fund to pay the authority that, in turn, the authority is obligated to pay Related to carry out the revitalization project. View "City of Anaheim v. Cohen" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiff Dennis Ponte demanded defendant County of Calaveras (County) to pay him over $150,000 to reimburse him for work purportedly performed on the County’s behalf pursuant to an oral contract. The contract did not contain any fixed payment, and no bid was submitted nor approved pursuant to relevant county ordinances governing public contracts. Ponte disregarded opportunities to abandon his claims after the County provided him with pertinent legal authority demonstrating that his claims lacked merit. After multiple sustained demurrers, the trial court granted summary judgment to the County on Ponte’s third amended complaint. The court later awarded substantial attorney fees, finding Ponte’s claims, including those based on promissory estoppel, were not brought or maintained in both subjective and objective good faith. Ponte appealed. Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeal affirmed. View "Ponte v. County of Calaveras" on Justia Law

by
In a 2005 Cooperation and Option Agreement to facilitate Russell's construction and operation of the Energy Center, a natural gas-fired, combined cycle electric generating facility in Hayward, the city granted Russell an option to purchase 12.5 acres of city-owned land as the Energy Center's site and promised to help Russell obtain permits, approvals, and water treatment services. Russell conveyed a 3.5-acre parcel to the city. The Agreement's “Payments Clause” prohibited the city from imposing any taxes on the “development, construction, ownership and operation” of the Energy Center except taxes tethered to real estate ownership. In 2009, Hayward voters approved an ordinance that imposes “a tax upon every person using electricity in the City. … at the rate of five and one-half percent (5.5%) of the charges made for such electricity” with a similar provision regarding gas usage. Russell began building the Energy Center in 2010. In 2011, the city informed Russell it must pay the utility tax. The Energy Center is operational.The court of appeal affirmed a holding that the Payments Clause was unenforceable as violating California Constitution article XIII, section 31, which provides “[t]he power to tax may not be surrendered or suspended by grant or contract.” Russell may amend its complaint to allege a quasi-contractual restitution claim. View "Russell City Energy Co. v. City of Hayward" on Justia Law