Tom Mulcaire Contracting, LLC v. City of Cottonwood
227 Ariz. 533
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- In Feb 2009 the City announced a bid process for construction work; May 5, 2009 the Tiffany contract was awarded after bid evaluation.
- Mulcaire protested the award and sued for a writ of mandamus to rebid under A.R.S. § 34-603, seeking fees and costs.
- Approximately two months later, the City terminated the Tiffany contract to begin self-performance of the work.
- The City moved to dismiss as moot or for summary judgment; Mulcaire argued mootness did not automatically resolve the relief sought.
- The superior court held the City’s actions mooted the case and entered a merits judgment in Mulcaire’s favor, finding a violation of bidding laws.
- Mulcaire later moved for attorneys’ fees under A.R.S. § 12-2030; the court awarded a portion of fees; the City appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must §12-2030 prevail by mandamus-type relief? | Mulcaire argues adjudication on the merits suffices. | City argues an order compelling performance is required. | Generally requires mandamus-type relief. |
| Can fees be awarded where the City mooted the case by self-performance? | Equitable relief should still award fees if the intent to moot unfairly deprives remedy. | Mootness precludes fee entitlement under §12-2030. | Court may award fees despite mootness under equitable principles. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bilke v. State, 221 Ariz. 60 (App. 2009) (establishes elements of §12-2030(A))
- Sines v. Holden, 89 Ariz. 207 (1961) (mandamus relief requires a right to relief and duty compliance)
- Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson, 158 Ariz. 137 (1988) (mooting can deprive a court of jurisdiction; equitable considerations apply)
- Loiselle v. Cosas Mgmt. Grp., LLC, 224 Ariz. 207 (App. 2010) (equitable remedies moldable by trial court)
- Daystar Invs., L.L.C. v. Maricopa Cnty. Treasurer, 207 Ariz. 569 (App. 2004) (equity governs remedy in certain contexts)