13 Cal.App.5th 194
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Hesperia agreed with Cinema West (DDA) for Cinema West to buy city land and build a 12‑screen theater while the City would build an adjacent on‑grade parking lot, water retention, and off‑site improvements; parties coordinated design and construction and agreed to operate the theater 10+ years.
- The City committed roughly $1.5M (described as a forgivable loan) plus a one‑time payment and built the parking lot for the theater; Cinema West constructed the theater and opened it in 2012.
- IBEW Local 477 petitioned the DIR for a prevailing‑wage coverage determination; the DIR concluded the theater + related parking and improvements were a single integrated project and a public work under Lab. Code § 1720.
- Cinema West administratively appealed, requested a hearing (denied), then sought writ relief in superior court; the superior court sustained the DIR decision and rejected Cinema West’s extra‑record evidence.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed: it applied substantial‑evidence review to factual findings and independent judgment to statutory interpretation, held the projects formed a “complete integrated object,” and found public funds (including City construction of the parking lot) sufficient to trigger the PWL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cinema West) | Defendant's Argument (Director/City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the theater and parking lot constitute a single "construction"/"complete integrated object" under §1720 | Projects are separable; coordination alone doesn't make the theater a public work | The DDA shows coordinated, contemporaneous construction; parking lot was necessary and planned to serve the theater | Held: They form a single integrated object; totality of facts supports treating them as one construction project |
| Whether public funds paid for the project (so §1720 applies) | Cinema West asserts it never received the forgivable loans or one‑time payment, so no public subsidy to it | City performed construction (parking lot, water retention, curbs) and committed payments; City construction counts as public funds under §1720(b)(2) | Held: City construction of parking lot and other public contributions constitute public funds; PWL applies |
| Admissibility of extra‑record evidence / procedural due process claim | Director denied hearing and thus Cinema West lacked opportunity to develop evidence; court should consider extra‑record declarations | Administrative record contained public documents; Cinema West had opportunities to submit evidence and did not; extra‑record evidence is barred absent narrow exception | Held: Court properly excluded extra‑record evidence; Cinema West failed to show diligence or entitlement to the narrow exception; no due process violation |
| Request for injunctive relief against DIR enforcement and penalties | DIR failed to commence hearing within 90 days; DIR proceeded improperly; penalties are unsupported | 90‑day requirement is directory, Cinema West sought stay in superior court and proceedings were stayed; Cinema West failed to exhaust remedies and waived detailed appellate challenge | Held: Issue forfeited on appeal for lack of adequate argument; superior court did not err in denying injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Lusardi Constr. Co. v. Aubry, 1 Cal.4th 976 (Cal. 1992) (purpose of prevailing wage law and broad construction to protect employees on public works)
- City of Long Beach v. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, 34 Cal.4th 942 (Cal. 2004) (construction/predominant purpose analysis in PWL context)
- Oxbow Carbon & Minerals, LLC v. Dep’t of Indus. Relations, 194 Cal.App.4th 538 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (adopts "complete integrated object" and totality‑of‑facts approach to scope of construction under §1720)
- Western States Petroleum Ass’n v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.4th 559 (Cal. 1995) (limits on extra‑record evidence in traditional mandamus challenging quasi‑legislative administrative decisions)
- Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. San Francisco Airports Comm., 21 Cal.4th 352 (Cal. 1999) (standard for substantial evidence review of administrative factual findings)