SJJC Aviation Services v. City of San Jose
H041035
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 20, 2017Background
- The City of San Jose issued an RFP in 2012 to select a developer/operator for a new fixed base operator (FBO) on airport land; respondents had to satisfy pass/fail completeness criteria and then be scored, with revenue to the City a primary factor.
- Three entities responded: Signature (proposed immediate construction, 50-year lease, significant capital investment), Ross (rejected for missing required FBO storage info), and SJJC (submitted a “Plan First” non‑facility financial proposal that omitted nine required RFP elements and was deemed nonresponsive).
- The City staff recommended Signature; SJJC protested and appealed its disqualification and the intended award, arguing improper favoritism and that the City later altered proposed lease/curfew terms after bids were submitted.
- The City Council denied SJJC’s appeal, authorized negotiation and execution of a lease with Signature, and modified the exemplar lease language to rely on general compliance-with-law language rather than the more restrictive curfew eviction clause that had been considered.
- SJJC filed writs and complaints seeking mandate, injunction, and declaratory relief to rescind the award and reissue the RFP; the trial court sustained demurrers without leave to amend, finding SJJC failed to plead a violated mandatory duty or demonstrate standing.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed: SJJC lacked a beneficial interest as a nonresponsive bidder, citizen‑standing was unwarranted, and any curfew change did not prejudice SJJC because its disqualification was based on unrelated, material omissions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Beneficial‑interest standing under Code Civ. Proc. §1086 | SJJC asserted it was “beneficially interested” because it participated in the RFP and would be directly harmed by post‑submission changes that advantaged Signature | The City and Signature argued SJJC submitted a nonresponsive bid and therefore had no direct stake; it could not benefit from issuance of a writ | Held: No standing — SJJC’s bid was nonresponsive for independent reasons; alleged curfew change did not affect SJJC’s chance to be selected |
| Citizen/public‑interest standing to enforce public procurement duties | SJJC claimed public‑interest standing as a current tenant and RFP participant with special expertise to protect the public fisc and fair procurement | Defendants argued the exception is narrow; SJJC’s motive was competitive, not a weighty public need, so citizen standing is inapplicable | Held: No citizen standing — SJJC’s interest was competitive, not a demonstrated weighty public duty or public need |
| Merits: abuse of discretion / violation of mandatory/ministerial duties (RFP/charter/municipal code) | SJJC alleged the City favored Signature, ignored RFP rules, and violated municipal/charter provisions and the RFP’s terms | Defendants said cited charter/municipal provisions did not apply to this lease RFP and SJJC failed to identify any mandatory duty the City violated | Held: Demurrer sustained — pleadings did not identify a violated mandatory duty or adequately allege abuse of discretion |
| Remedies & leave to amend (injunction, declaratory relief, reissue RFP) | SJJC sought injunctive and declaratory relief and asked for leave to amend to allege Public Contract Code violations | Defendants maintained SJJC could not show prejudice from the alleged procedural changes and had not identified specific statutory violations; leave to amend would be futile | Held: Denial of leave to amend and dismissal affirmed — SJJC failed to show reasonable possibility amendment would cure defects; no injunctive or declaratory relief warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Crowley v. Katleman, 8 Cal.4th 666 (1994) (standard for accepting pleadings and judicially noticed facts on demurrer)
- Moore v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 51 Cal.3d 120 (1990) (pleading assumptions on demurrer review)
- Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach, 52 Cal.4th 155 (2011) (limits on public‑interest/citizen standing for mandamus)
- Brown v. Crandall, 198 Cal.App.4th 1 (2011) (section 1086 beneficial‑interest standing requirement)
- Baldwin‑Lima‑Hamilton Corp. v. Superior Court, 208 Cal.App.2d 803 (1962) (nonprecedent for award reversal where the challenger was the lowest responsive bidder)
- Los Altos Golf & Country Club v. County of Santa Clara, 165 Cal.App.4th 198 (2008) (demurrer review standards)