Braunstein v. Arizona Department of Transportation
683 F.3d 1177
9th Cir.2012Background
- Braunstein owns BasePlans USA, an Arizona engineering/land surveying firm that previously worked for the Arizona Department of Transportation (the Department).
- Braunstein sued the Department in 2003–2005 in state court over alleged conspiracy and breach related to utility-location work and subsequently filed a federal suit in 2006 alleging equal-protection violations from Arizona’s DBE program in the 2005 contract award.
- The 2005 prime contract for utility location work was awarded to DMJM Harris, with DMJM selecting Aztec as its utility subcontractor; Aztec was not a DBE.
- Arizona’s DBE program allowed a 5-point DBE credit under a 100-point bid scoring system; all six bidders for the 2005 contract received maximum DBE credit, but most did not identify BasePlans as a DBE subcontractor.
- Braunstein did not bid on the 2005 prime contract and did not submit any subcontracting bid to any bidder; he merely contacted bidders to seek subcontracting opportunities.
- The district court dismissed various claims on sovereign immunity and lack of standing; by 2010 it limited remaining claims to damages and raised standing concerns, ultimately holding Braunstein lacked standing to pursue damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Braunstein have Article III standing for damages? | Braunstein contends the DBE program denied him equal protection in bidding. | State/Department argues Braunstein failed to show a personal, concrete injury tied to the DBE program. | No standing; Braunstein failed to show personal, cognizable injury. |
| Are the § 1981/1983 damages claims barred by Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity? | Damages claims against state actors are permissible under § 1981/1983 to remedy violations; Congress abrogated immunity for § 2000d. | Sovereign immunity bars official-capacity damages and validates dismissal of those claims. | Damages claims against officials in their individual capacity remained, but official-capacity/State-damages claims were barred; overall standing issue controls. |
| Were the § 2000d damages claims frivolous or improperly asserted warranting § 1988 fees? | Plaintiff maintains claims were legally cognizable under Title VI and § 2000d. | Claims were frivolous or groundless, given lack of standing and no federal funds in the disputed contract. | The district court’s § 1988 fee award was improper; fees should not be awarded to defendants. |
| Was sanctions under § 1927 appropriate? | Sanctions were warranted for dilatory or vexatious conduct. | Sanctions were appropriate due to frivolous/groundless claims and improper conduct. | Sanctions reversed; no § 1927 sanctions awarded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Northeastern Florida Chapter of Associated General Contractors of America v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (1993) (standing for equal-protection challenges; injury-in-fact can be denial of equal treatment)
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) (barrier to competition supports standing in equal-protection challenges)
- Bras v. California Public Utilities Commission, 59 F.3d 869 (1995) (standing for state-affirmative-action goals; aspirational goals can confer standing)
- Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934 (2003) (incomplete application cannot demonstrate denial of equal treatment)
- Monterey Mechanical Co. v. Wilson, 125 F.3d 702 (1997) (standing when bidder demonstrates ability to compete for goal-based programs)
- Texas v. Lesage, 528 U.S. 18 (1999) (no cognizable injury for forward-looking challenges where decision would have been the same absent discrimination)