14 Cal. App. 5th 551
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2017Background
- In 2011 a land failure occurred under a county road; Ponte (plaintiff) performed work onsite and sought payment from County of Calaveras based on an alleged oral agreement with a county employee.
- Ponte submitted a bill for about $150,000; County refused payment because no written contract, no competitive bidding, and applicable county ordinances were not followed.
- Ponte filed suit (multiple amended complaints followed); the trial court sustained demurrers and ultimately granted summary judgment for the County on Ponte's third amended complaint.
- The trial court awarded the County attorney fees under Code Civ. Proc. § 1038, finding Ponte’s claims were not brought or maintained in both subjective and objective good faith.
- Ponte appealed from the judgment and the award of fees; the appellate court affirmed both summary judgment and the § 1038 fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether promissory estoppel can enforce an alleged oral contract with County | Ponte argued County employees made promises and estoppel should apply to require payment | County argued public contracting rules and bidding statutes bar oral contracts and estoppel cannot defeat public policy | Court held promissory estoppel cannot be used to bypass public contracting rules; no exceptional facts justified estoppel |
| Whether a continuance should have been granted on summary judgment | Ponte claimed discovery problems warranted a continuance | County noted Ponte never filed the required affidavit showing facts essential to justify a continuance | Court held Ponte failed to properly seek a continuance and forfeited the argument |
| Relevance of Ponte's lack of contractor license | Ponte argued licensure status was immaterial to his claim for payment | County maintained the core problem was lack of a written/authorized contract; licensure was secondary | Court did not reach licensure issue because promissory estoppel failed; licensure immaterial to disposition |
| Whether § 1038 fees were properly awarded | Ponte said pursuing collection was not bad faith and emergencies could justify his conduct | County argued the suit lacked objective reasonable cause and was not reasonably tenable given absence of written contract or declared emergency | Court held plaintiff lacked objective reasonable cause; § 1038 award affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kajima/Ray Wilson v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 23 Cal.4th 305 (public policy forbids estoppel to circumvent competitive bidding rules)
- Long Beach v. Mansell, 3 Cal.3d 462 (courts may apply estoppel against public agency only in exceptional cases where justice clearly requires)
- Poway Royal Mobilehome Owners Assn. v. City of Poway, 149 Cal.App.4th 1460 (rejecting oral contract and estoppel against public entity where it would defeat statutory procedures)
- Hall v. Regents of University of California, 43 Cal.App.4th 1580 (standard for § 1038: subjective good faith and objective reasonable cause)
- Guz v. Bechtel National, Inc., 24 Cal.4th 317 (standard for appellate review of summary judgment)