Piledrivers' Local Union No. 2375 v. City of Santa Monica

Bad Law
151 Cal. App. 3d 509·198 Cal. Rptr. 731·1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 1571
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 31, 1984Civ. 69027California1,525 words

Opinion

Opinion

Saeta, J.

Appellants appeal from denial of their application for a preliminary injunction. They sought to enjoin the work being done by employ ees of the City of Santa Monica (City) on the City-owned Newcomb Pier. Appellants advance two arguments in support of their position: (1) state law required the City to put the work to competitive bidding; and (2) the City’s charter requires competitive bidding. The trial court found that the work was a matter of municipal concern and the work was not shown to be new construction so as to require the public bidding procedure. The trial court was correct and we affirm.

Appellants rely on Public Contract Code sections 20161 and 20162. These provisions were formerly found in Government Code sections 37901 and 37902..They provide for work done in “erection, improvement, painting, or repair of public buildings and works” of over $5,000 expenditure to “be contracted for and let to the lowest responsible bidder after notice.” It is conceded that work on the pier required an expenditure of well over $5,000. The City counters with the argument that sections 20161 and 20162 do not apply because it is a charter city.

California Constitution, article…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.