207 Cal. App. 4th 1011
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Ready Golf (Ready Golf) sought a writ of mandate directing the City to submit its contract with Ready Golf to the City Council or compel award/execution; the City awarded to Ready Golf in 2008, but City Council disapproved the contract in September 2009; after extensive proceedings, the City Department rejected all bids in September 2010 to pursue self-operation; Ready Golf filed an ordinary/administrative mandamus claim in November 2010; the trial court sustained the City’s demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action; the Court of Appeal upheld, holding mandamus relief was unavailable given the discretionary nature of contracting and City Charter constraints; the dispositive issue is whether Ready Golf’s petition states a legally viable claim for traditional mandamus to compel action or reversal of discretionary decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus can compel submission/award of a long-term contract | Ready Golf seeks mandamus to force submission to, or award by, City Council. | City contends discretionary contract decisions cannot be compelled; writs target ministerial acts. | No; mandamus cannot control City’s discretionary contracting decisions. |
| Whether the City’s right-to-reject provision supports a writ claim | Right to reject bids was misapplied; record shows arbitrary denial of Ready Golf. | Right to reject applies to bidding, not post-bid discretionary actions; no writ remedy. | Not a basis for writ relief; rejection of bids and long-term contract approval involve discretion not mandamus. |
| Whether the alleged contract modification and post-disapproval actions state a writ claim | Motions post-disapproval illegally modify the contract and should be reviewed. | Council motions to pursue alternatives after disapproval do not modify the original contract; no writ flaw shown. | No writ claim stated; discretionary actions not subject to mandamus. |
| Whether amendment could cure defects | Amendment could cure pleading defects. | Amendment would fail to state a mandamus claim as a matter of law. | No reasonable cure; leave to amend not abused. |
Key Cases Cited
- SN Sands Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco, 167 Cal.App.4th 185 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (review of legislative contract decisions; mandamus limits)
- Marshall v. Pasadena Unified School Dist., 119 Cal.App.4th 1241 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (mandamus review of administrative decisions)
- Landsborough v. Kelly, 1 Cal.2d 739 (Cal. 1934) (discretionary acts; writ does not control discretion)
- Common Cause v. Board of Supervisors, 49 Cal.3d 432 (Cal. 1989) (limits of mandamus to discretionary acts)
- Domar Electric, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 9 Cal.4th 161 (Cal. 1994) (charter limitations; powers limited by charter)
- AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Los Angeles County Dept. of Public Health, 197 Cal.App.4th 693 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (mandamus not available to compel discretionary public health actions)
- Monterey Mechanical Co. v. Sacramento Regional County Sanitation Dist., 44 Cal.App.4th 1391 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (quasi-judicial vs. legislative; mandate review boundaries)
- Westamerica Bank v. City of Berkeley, 201 Cal.App.4th 598 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (standard for reviewing demurrers to contract claims)
- First Street Plaza Partners v. City of Los Angeles, 65 Cal.App.4th 650 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (charter limits and municipal powers; contract authority)
- Mike Moore's 24-Hour Towing v. City of San Diego, 45 Cal.App.4th 1294 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (discretion in contract awards; mandamus review)