Costa Mesa City Employees' Ass'n v. City of Costa Mesa
209 Cal. App. 4th 298
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- CMCEA represents City of Costa Mesa employees; City considers outsourcing various services.
- CMCEA sues for injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging state law and MOU violations.
- MOU provisions require six-month notice and CMCEA participation in cost evaluation and contracting discussions.
- City approves outsourcing plan in March 2011 and issues layoff notices to CMCEA members in March 2011.
- CMCEA seeks preliminary injunction to halt outsourcing; trial court grants injunction July 15, 2011.
- On appeal, the focus is whether the injunction was proper and whether CMCEA has some likelihood of success on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Irreparable harm and likelihood of success | CMCEA members face irreparable harm from layoffs; some likelihood of success on merits. | Outsourcing is authorized; harms are contingent and not imminent; no merit shown yet. | Injunction affirmed; irreparable harm shown and some likelihood of success. |
| City authority to contract with private entities for nonspecial services | Special services statutes (37103, 53060) limit outsourcing to private entities to special services. | City may contract with private entities for many services; statutes do not restrict to special services only. | Court adopts CMCEA view: only two services expressly authorized for private outsourcing; general nonspecial outsourcing to private entities is limited. |
| MOU compliance in outsourcing decision-making process | City failed to involve CMCEA in cost evaluation and contracting discussions as required by Article 14.1. | MOU allows outsourcing under broad statutory authority; participation obligation does not veto outsourcing. | Article 14.1 requires CMCEA involvement; lack of prior involvement supports some likelihood of success. |
| State constitutional and statutory limits on municipal contracting | City contracts with private entities for nonspecial services conflict with California Constitution and Government Code provisions and statutes on special services. | General and local authority supports contracting; strict reading of special services statutes is disputed. | There is some possibility CMCEA will prevail on contract and statutory claims; injunction not to be disturbed. |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Davis, 30 Cal.4th 528 (Cal. 2003) (irreparable harm and standard for preliminary injunctions)
- Scaringe v. J. C. C. Enterprises, Inc., 205 Cal.App.3d 1536 (Cal. App. 1988) (purpose of injunction is to preserve status quo)
- Butt v. State of California, 4 Cal.4th 668 (Cal. 1992) (likelihood of success and interim harm in injunctions)
- Aiuto v. City and County of San Francisco, 201 Cal.App.4th 1347 (Cal. App. 2011) (likelihood of success on merits in injunctions; de novo review on legal questions)
- O’Connell v. Superior Court, 141 Cal.App.4th 1452 (Cal. App. 2006) (de novo review where legal questions determine outcome)
- Service Employees Internat. Union v. Board of Trustees, 47 Cal.App.4th 1661 (Cal. App. 1996) (special services statutes and authority to contract)
- California School Employees Assn. v. Kern Community College Dist., 41 Cal.App.4th 1003 (Cal. App. 1996) (outsourcing at the school district level and special services context)
- San Francisco v. Boyd, 17 Cal.2d 606 (Cal. 1941) (distinction between required public officials and general services; charter city context)
- California School Employees Assn. v. Kern Community College Dist., 41 Cal.App.4th 1003 (Cal. App. 1996) (outsourcing of groundskeeping; authority to contract)